If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   New Jobs report: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%. November's Jobs report: Mitt Romney still unemployed   (npr.org) divider line 714
    More: Spiffy, Mitt Romney, Alan Krueger, a.m. ET, Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment  
•       •       •

1196 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Sep 2012 at 11:10 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



714 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-07 12:18:53 PM  

ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs


Remember 3 and a half years ago when we we lost 818,000 jobs in a single month? Of course you don't. For the rest of us, suddenly that "only" +96,000 doesn't seem so bad.
 
2012-09-07 12:18:57 PM  

MattStafford: DamnYankees: We can either borrow, tax or print. Given our current interest rates, I think borrowing makes the most sense.

Out of curiousity, suppose there was a drunk who spent all of his money on wine and women, building bigger houses and taking extravagant trips. The bank was funding all of this at an extremely low rate. Would you think it fiscally prudent for him to double down on this just because of the low rates?


If they're lending it unsecured (as investors lend to governments), absolutely. Why would any rational profit-maximizing self-interested agent *turn down money*? If people's behavior is that far away from rational self-interest, where does that leave economic theory?

Ignoring that national debts don't have to be "paid back" in the sense personal debts do, he can determine whether borrowing more money than he can pay back is worth the eventual hit to his credit rating.
 
2012-09-07 12:19:21 PM  

earthwirm: Kool-Aid drinkers the whole lot of you.

Median household income is down $4,000 since Obama took office. We have added + Six Trillion dollars to the debt, so the debt burden is now $132,000 for each and every American. And the solution that Obama promised would keep unemployment below 8% was spend money. That was achieved how? In the greatest swindle of our history. Borrowing on the backs of our childrend and grandchildren. Trillions of dollars in stimulus. Don't even get me started on the shell game they are playing with Obamacare and robbing Medicare and relying on unicorn farts and leprechauns to fund its future.

Oh, but we got a 2% decrease in our payroll taxes. From where? Social Security. So now we are funding that trust less, fewer people are paying into it, and I as a 30 something am supposed to feel good about that? I am already resigned to there being no Social Security or Medicare when I get to be in my 70s... But, the asininity and contortions that the politicians are going through to buy votes is mind boggling. Instead of promoting real solutions, and having an honest conversation with the American people about the future and the sacrifices we will all have to make to pass along to our children something better than we have, we are instead passing along the promise of Greece, Spain, and the rest of the Euro-zone. We are passing along the promise stagflation and an America in decline. Forgive me for not partaking in the Kool-Aid drinking.

Remember Obama promised that premiums wouldn't rise? Well, guess what they are rising, at a faster rate and the deductibles and co-pays are increasing as well. So, the burden is ever increasing on the American worker. Those who are lucky enough to remain employed are earning less and spending less all the while seeing the buying power of their dollar diminish at a faster and faster rate.

I know I know, it's Bush's fault and Obama inherited a mess. He also inherited Bush's congress (Pelosi and Reid) and they promptly ...


I think I speak for all of us when I say, TL;DNR
 
2012-09-07 12:19:34 PM  
Read 'em and weep, teatards! And this is before the DNC bounce hits.

img507.imageshack.us

Despite your leadership's best efforts to destroy one man at the expense of the rest of the country, we're doing too well for this to be the "referendum" election that the right wingnuts have been working toward for nearly four years.
 
2012-09-07 12:20:17 PM  

skullkrusher: starzman2003: ghare: skullkrusher: Not really seeing the "spiffy" here, subs

Liters. How stupid.

Don't group me in with that guy.

no, he's right. Liters are stupid. You especially so, apparently


Pfft I ain't payin' for this shiat.
 
2012-09-07 12:20:26 PM  
I'm 100% certain that Obama needs to be reelected. I think Romney would be an economic disaster.

That said, I must admit that this report is NOT good news. It shows that job growth continues to be frighteningly sluggish, and that the biggest reason for this month's drop in the unemployment rate is people who stop looking.

Romney's "solutions" are bogus. Tax cuts don't create jobs. That's axiomatic, no matter what the Repubs tell you. There are, however, billions of dollars' worth of infrastructure projects that could be undertaken by the private and public sector, or a combination thereof, that would create hundreds of thousands of jobs NOW, and even provide a return on our investment by increasing the tax base and having more efficient roads, bridges, utilities, etc.

Unfortunately, all efforts to actually get these moving have been blocked by partisan chicanery in Congress. The Republicans have had numerous opportunities to put Americans to work, but they'd rather sacrifice them all just to try and put ONE guy out of a job.

The Republican apologists around here can deny it all they want, but no one's buying it, especially when their party freely and openly admits to hijacking the legislative process, regrdless of the consequences, just to sabotage the Obama administration.
 
2012-09-07 12:20:29 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: Read 'em and weep, teatards! And this is before the DNC bounce hits.

[img507.imageshack.us image 400x820]

Despite your leadership's best efforts to destroy one man at the expense of the rest of the country, we're doing too well for this to be the "referendum" election that the right wingnuts have been working toward for nearly four years.


I'm a little worried about his projections - his Nov. 6 projection and his Nowcast have greatly diverged.
 
2012-09-07 12:21:13 PM  

coeyagi: You should have inverted the photo or inverted the Y axis or something instead of this crude P-shopped misfire.


I already did that once. The rule is that you can only reuse troll threads on FARK once every seven months. It hasn't been seven months. Taxbongo destroys jobs. The end.
 
2012-09-07 12:21:14 PM  

DamnYankees: If people with money were actually willing to invest their funds in private enterprise, why the hell would they be buying treasury bonds with negative real yields?


This is a wonderful question and should be asked more often. This is what the investor class is dumping their cash into, I think, because they are very risk-averse people (when it's their money). This is only my perception, as I am not of the investor class. However, if people are willing to give the government money for free, it should use that money and increase its velocity. Because sitting on treasury bonds in order to maintain the most anemic of growth is cowardly, and Americans cannot afford to be cowardly. We should be brave and build something.
 
2012-09-07 12:21:38 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: MattStafford: DamnYankees: We can either borrow, tax or print. Given our current interest rates, I think borrowing makes the most sense.

Out of curiousity, suppose there was a drunk who spent all of his money on wine and women, building bigger houses and taking extravagant trips. The bank was funding all of this at an extremely low rate. Would you think it fiscally prudent for him to double down on this just because of the low rates?

If they're lending it unsecured (as investors lend to governments), absolutely. Why would any rational profit-maximizing self-interested agent *turn down money*? If people's behavior is that far away from rational self-interest, where does that leave economic theory?

Ignoring that national debts don't have to be "paid back" in the sense personal debts do, he can determine whether borrowing more money than he can pay back is worth the eventual hit to his credit rating.


This is where you're going to run into issues.

The GOP and the ignorant among us insist on treating the government as if it were a 'person' with 'personal' debts, assets, income and other individual aspects to an individual economic situation. They literally go cross-eyed when you try to explain to them that national debt is not a bad thing in the proper amount and utilized correctly.

They'll go bug-eyed if you try to show them how national debt has actual 'value'.
 
2012-09-07 12:22:09 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: DamnYankees: MattStafford: DamnYankees: We can either borrow, tax or print. Given our current interest rates, I think borrowing makes the most sense.

Out of curiousity, suppose there was a drunk who spent all of his money on wine and women, building bigger houses and taking extravagant trips. The bank was funding all of this at an extremely low rate. Would you think it fiscally prudent for him to double down on this just because of the low rates?

Prudent for him, personally? But its better for the economy if he were to do that than if the bank just sat on that money and did nothing.

But this is not a good analogy, since the increased spending does not, in any way, increase the drunk's ability to earn income in the future. The government creating economic activity does increase its ability to take in revenue in the future.

Banks and lenders don't just sit on money. That's the part you're missing. The money used by the bank/investor to fund the drunk/Keynesian borrowing would otherwise have been used somewhere else.

To fund the governments Keynesian borrowing, which other asset class should investors/lenders reduce their investment in?

Mortgage lending? Should banks lend less to homeowners, further hurting prices?

Commercial lending? Should banks stop lending to expanding businesses and start ups to instead fund the deficit?

Municipal securities? Should investors lend their money to the federal government rather than to states and cities?


Are you seriously arguing that the deficit and low interest rates have led to a scarcity of liquidity?
 
2012-09-07 12:22:19 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: Despite your leadership's best efforts to destroy one man at the expense of the rest of the country, we're doing too well for this to be the "referendum" election that the right wingnuts have been working toward for nearly four years.


Oh, it's a referendum election alright. But in typical fashion Republicans can't even figure out what the question is, let alone how they can answer it.
 
2012-09-07 12:22:47 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: Read 'em and weep, teatards! And this is before the DNC bounce hits.

[img507.imageshack.us image 400x820]

Despite your leadership's best efforts to destroy one man at the expense of the rest of the country, we're doing too well for this to be the "referendum" election that the right wingnuts have been working toward for nearly four years.


If you're using the Nov 6 tab then 538 is taking in account the possible bounce. If you're looking at the Now Cast tab, that doesn't take in account expectations. At least that's how I see it and I could be wrong.
 
2012-09-07 12:22:48 PM  

DamnYankees: Debeo Summa Credo: Banks and lenders don't just sit on money. That's the part you're missing. The money used by the bank/investor to fund the drunk/Keynesian borrowing would otherwise have been used somewhere else.

Yeah, it's being used to buy treasury bonds - that's the point. This argument makes no sense in the context of low interest rates. If people with money were actually willing to invest their funds in private enterprise, why the hell would they be buying treasury bonds with negative real yields? But they are, for whatever reason. And while they are willing to do it, we should take advantage.


It's actually an interesting case for tax cuts. Because of these negative rates it currently costs the economy less in the long run for the government to borrow money than it does for the government to collect taxes. So a big-ass deficit-financed tax cut (a la Bush 2003) might be the long-run prudent thing to do.
 
2012-09-07 12:24:04 PM  

skullkrusher: Headso: skullkrusher: Headso: skullkrusher: CPennypacker: Some people don't realize that adisappointing jobs report doesnt necessarily mean Romney could do better (or good at all)

also, some people don't realize that honestly looking at a jobs report and saying "this is disappointing" is not a criticism of Obama nor an endorsement of Romney. It is an objective analysis of results vs expectations.

Those people must not realize we are 2 months from an election.

leave the spin to those running for office. You should be able to pull off objective analysis this close to an election.

the real possibility the election could bring us back to those good old days makes it part of the object

so you want dishonest analysis of data in light of that? Who am I kidding, of course you do.


And of course you want to remind people of the failure of your party, so bringing W is forbidden, amirite?
 
2012-09-07 12:24:47 PM  
In other news:
Hunger is down across the kingdom primarily due to starvation deaths.
 
2012-09-07 12:24:51 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: It's actually an interesting case for tax cuts. Because of these negative rates it currently costs the economy less in the long run for the government to borrow money than it does for the government to collect taxes. So a big-ass deficit-financed tax cut (a la Bush 2003) might be the long-run prudent thing to do.


Well, this is just a question of what method of stimulus you prefer - tax cuts is supply side with a low multiplier, spending is demand-side with higher multiplier. But make no mistake - arguing for tax cuts to help the economic IS Keynesian economics.
 
2012-09-07 12:25:06 PM  
MindStalker: Would you like Fries with that Hope and Change.

Infernalist: You're carrying water for the very people who see you as little more than a serf. Even if you're just trolling, you're not helping the situation at all.

Nah, he's a temporarily-embarrassed millionaire. All of the serfs who support Republicans think of themselves that way.
 
2012-09-07 12:25:42 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: Read 'em and weep, teatards! And this is before the DNC bounce hits.

[img507.imageshack.us image 400x820]

Despite your leadership's best efforts to destroy one man at the expense of the rest of the country, we're doing too well for this to be the "referendum" election that the right wingnuts have been working toward for nearly four years.


The forecast you pasted does not factor in convention bounces, includes economic indicators, and I don't think it's been updated in light of this jobs report. Silver says that this report will mean a lot for Obama's lead. He's been talking it up all week. I have no idea what he'll make of this. It's a good news/bad news mess.

I predict he'll cut about 6 EV and 8% odds off Obama's lead. I base this on absolutely nothing.
 
2012-09-07 12:25:54 PM  

skullkrusher: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: skullkrusher: I suppose you would argue that the fact that they earned any money at all makes it not disappointing - this is, of course, ridiculous.

I disagree that this is a ridiculous argument. I think that earning any profit at all is a good thing. I think that we generally have unrealistic expectations about the state of the world, and I think that given the global economy is currently in a state where it is finding its equilibrium (as the fella that wrote Snow Crash said "The invisible hand of the free market smooths everything out to the level a pakistani brick layer would call prosperity) any growth at all is a good thing. But I have lowered expectations. 30 years of watching Pax Americana collapse like a flan in a cupboard will do that.

you're expecting a 10% raise but you get a 2% raise, is that disappointing or is it just one of those things where you had unrealistic expectations about the state of the world?

/I can't believe this conversation is actually happening


I'm sure Bush will be gratified to learn that his term wasnt disappointing from an employment perspective.

Sure, total employment increased less than 1% from his inauguration to his departure from office, when all expectations would have been for far more job growth than that, but hey, projections are hard and ice cream is yummy.
 
2012-09-07 12:26:02 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: DamnYankees: If people with money were actually willing to invest their funds in private enterprise, why the hell would they be buying treasury bonds with negative real yields?

This is a wonderful question and should be asked more often. This is what the investor class is dumping their cash into, I think, because they are very risk-averse people (when it's their money). This is only my perception, as I am not of the investor class. However, if people are willing to give the government money for free, it should use that money and increase its velocity. Because sitting on treasury bonds in order to maintain the most anemic of growth is cowardly, and Americans cannot afford to be cowardly. We should be brave and build something.


Amen.
 
2012-09-07 12:26:02 PM  

Infernalist: Gaseous Anomaly: MattStafford: DamnYankees: We can either borrow, tax or print. Given our current interest rates, I think borrowing makes the most sense.

Out of curiousity, suppose there was a drunk who spent all of his money on wine and women, building bigger houses and taking extravagant trips. The bank was funding all of this at an extremely low rate. Would you think it fiscally prudent for him to double down on this just because of the low rates?

If they're lending it unsecured (as investors lend to governments), absolutely. Why would any rational profit-maximizing self-interested agent *turn down money*? If people's behavior is that far away from rational self-interest, where does that leave economic theory?

Ignoring that national debts don't have to be "paid back" in the sense personal debts do, he can determine whether borrowing more money than he can pay back is worth the eventual hit to his credit rating.

This is where you're going to run into issues.

The GOP and the ignorant among us insist on treating the government as if it were a 'person' with 'personal' debts, assets, income and other individual aspects to an individual economic situation. They literally go cross-eyed when you try to explain to them that national debt is not a bad thing in the proper amount and utilized correctly.

They'll go bug-eyed if you try to show them how national debt has actual 'value'.


Yup. Lending to the government is exactly like lending to a person - if the person lived forever and could create arbitrary quantities of the thing you're lending them out of thin air.
 
2012-09-07 12:26:31 PM  

DamnYankees: How is that "distorted"? That's just part of the economy. Are you claiming that an economy with no military expenses is somehow "normal", and that the existence of a military "distorts" that baseline? That seems a little strange.


Government builds a military base in bumblefark Pennsylvania. Stores and people move to that town, because there is demand created from that military base. Government eventually shuts the base down. Those towns and stores that are now useless and failing would not have been there had the government not distorted the economy.

DamnYankees: Nothing 'happens'. The money flows around the economy; that's how economies work.

Ditch digger pays money to buy food.
Grocer pays employees with that money.
Employee goes to a movie with that money.
Movie theater buys popcorn with that money.
Popcorn maker buys house with that money.
Contractors buys food with that money.

And around and around we go. You need to create the demand, and without people there's no demand.


And when the government stops paying those ditch diggers and has to pay down the debt, they take that money out of the circulation. Perhaps that is the key disconnect. I agree with you that when the government (or any entity, as many do) creates money through debt, they boost the economy. However, when that debt is paid back, they remove money from the economy, and all of the gains are lost.
 
2012-09-07 12:26:59 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: DamnYankees: Debeo Summa Credo: Banks and lenders don't just sit on money. That's the part you're missing. The money used by the bank/investor to fund the drunk/Keynesian borrowing would otherwise have been used somewhere else.

Yeah, it's being used to buy treasury bonds - that's the point. This argument makes no sense in the context of low interest rates. If people with money were actually willing to invest their funds in private enterprise, why the hell would they be buying treasury bonds with negative real yields? But they are, for whatever reason. And while they are willing to do it, we should take advantage.

It's actually an interesting case for tax cuts. Because of these negative rates it currently costs the economy less in the long run for the government to borrow money than it does for the government to collect taxes. So a big-ass deficit-financed tax cut (a la Bush 2003) might be the long-run prudent thing to do.


So the best way to reduce the national debt is to add $5 trillion to it as Romney proposes? What kind of math are you using?
 
2012-09-07 12:27:35 PM  

Polly Ester: In other news:
Hunger is down across the kingdom primarily due to starvation deaths.


well said.

did you steal that?

may i?
 
2012-09-07 12:27:36 PM  

ddam: If you're using the Nov 6 tab then 538 is taking in account the possible bounce. If you're looking at the Now Cast tab, that doesn't take in account expectations. At least that's how I see it and I could be wrong.



Those graphs are from the Nov. 6 tab. You are correct - some of the bounce could be recorded there, although I don't think many, if any, polls have been conducted yet to record the DNC bounce.
 
2012-09-07 12:28:17 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: Yup. Lending to the government is exactly like lending to a person - if the person lived forever and could create arbitrary quantities of the thing you're lending them out of thin air.


And it that thing you're lending them was the single most important version of that thing the world had to offer. If it's movement was, in fact, the very lynchpin of world economics. The American government can, literally, sh*t value.
 
2012-09-07 12:28:19 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Or because of the spending of those ditch diggers demand increases across the board leading to new jobs which the ditch diggers take bit by bit as they find jobs they prefer to digging ditches.


THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. Ditch digger demand leads to expansion by washing machine company. Ditch digger leaves ditch digging job and gets job at washing machine company. Don't you see the issue with that?
 
2012-09-07 12:28:22 PM  

MattStafford: DamnYankees: How is that "distorted"? That's just part of the economy. Are you claiming that an economy with no military expenses is somehow "normal", and that the existence of a military "distorts" that baseline? That seems a little strange.

Government builds a military base in bumblefark Pennsylvania. Stores and people move to that town, because there is demand created from that military base. Government eventually shuts the base down. Those towns and stores that are now useless and failing would not have been there had the government not distorted the economy.


How is this different from the private sector?

GM builds a factory in bumblefark Pennsylvania. Stores and people move to that town, because there is demand created from that factory. GM eventually shuts the factory down. Those towns and stores that are now useless and failing would not have been there had GM not distorted the economy.

It's the exact same thing.
 
2012-09-07 12:29:04 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: It is my desire that caused my suffering.


ooh, forgive me Siddhārtha
 
2012-09-07 12:29:17 PM  

MattStafford: And when the government stops paying those ditch diggers and has to pay down the debt, they take that money out of the circulation. Perhaps that is the key disconnect. I agree with you that when the government (or any entity, as many do) creates money through debt, they boost the economy. However, when that debt is paid back, they remove money from the economy, and all of the gains are lost.


Again - how is this different from the private sector? Yes, of course, when people get fired it hurts the economy. But you're essentially arguing this means they should never have been hired in the first place. And that doesn't make any sense.
 
2012-09-07 12:29:29 PM  

Dinki: adiabat: From 2002-2008 the worst it ever got was 13.5%.


It's almost as if something pretty bad happened to the economy in 2008...


Yes, we elected 0bama.

Average number of jobs created per month in 2011: 153,000
Average number of jobs created per month in 2012: 139,000

Conclusion: but, but, but, bbbbuush!

Whatever 0bama thinks he is doing to create jobs has failed.
 
2012-09-07 12:29:56 PM  

DamnYankees: Debeo Summa Credo: Banks and lenders don't just sit on money. That's the part you're missing. The money used by the bank/investor to fund the drunk/Keynesian borrowing would otherwise have been used somewhere else.

Yeah, it's being used to buy treasury bonds - that's the point. This argument makes no sense in the context of low interest rates. If people with money were actually willing to invest their funds in private enterprise, why the hell would they be buying treasury bonds with negative real yields? But they are, for whatever reason. And while they are willing to do it, we should take advantage.


Huh? Yeah, they're already buying treasury securities but you think we should issue more debt. Where is that money going to come from? The market cant collectively sell the t-bills they already have to buy the new ones we issue.
 
2012-09-07 12:30:44 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Actually, you just look at projections as academic exercises and instead focus on actual real numbers.


which is what we're doing. Focusing on the prelim results. Those prelim results were less than we expected. Therefore, they are disappointing.
 
2012-09-07 12:30:55 PM  

skullkrusher: Headso: skullkrusher: Graffito: theknuckler_33: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

No, but it's sure beats the 700K jobs lost in a quarter under the previous administration.

it is also not as bad as the Holocaust and the Black Death combined. Just as relevant.

We are about to have an election that could give W's party more power.

which has farkall to do with whether this is a "spiffy" jobs report number


The republicans are saying, "Don't vote for Obama - look how bad the job growth numbers are."

I'm saying that we should vote for Obama because the last time a republican was in charge we were hemorrhaging jobs. Tepid job growth is preferable to massive job loss.
 
2012-09-07 12:31:25 PM  

earthwirm: Kool-Aid drinkers the whole lot of you.

Median household income is down $4,000 since Obama took office. We have added + Six Trillion dollars to the debt, so the debt burden is now $132,000 for each and every American.


Wouldn't it be nice to have an actual discussion about this with actual proposed solutions? We agree on the problems, but there is no alternative proposal to what Obama is suggesting. The Republicans have no proposal to reduce the debt nor address income nor jobs. You get to write a nice long post criticizing Obama's proposal, we don't get to counter criticizing Romney's because he has no alternative proposal.

Seriously, start criticizing your own team for not proposing something alternative.
 
2012-09-07 12:32:36 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Yeah, they're already buying treasury securities but you think we should issue more debt.


Selling treasury securities *is* issuing debt.

You realize that, right?

Debeo Summa Credo: The market cant collectively sell the t-bills they already have to buy the new ones we issue.


What? I'm starting to think you don't understand what t-bills are. The market doesn't sell them. The government does.

If you are arguing that the market doesn't have the liquidity to buy t-bills, you're just empirically wrong. I mean...we're selling our t-bills fine. Clearly there's demand for them. That's not now nor has it ever been a problem.
 
2012-09-07 12:33:21 PM  

Headso: skullkrusher: Headso: skullkrusher: Headso: skullkrusher: CPennypacker: Some people don't realize that adisappointing jobs report doesnt necessarily mean Romney could do better (or good at all)

also, some people don't realize that honestly looking at a jobs report and saying "this is disappointing" is not a criticism of Obama nor an endorsement of Romney. It is an objective analysis of results vs expectations.

Those people must not realize we are 2 months from an election.

leave the spin to those running for office. You should be able to pull off objective analysis this close to an election.

the real possibility the election could bring us back to those good old days makes it part of the object

so you want dishonest analysis of data in light of that? Who am I kidding, of course you do.

And of course you want to remind people of the failure of your party, so bringing W is forbidden, amirite?


you're not even trying anymore. Seriously, if you aren't farking around you're an extra special sort of idiot
 
2012-09-07 12:33:29 PM  

Highroller48: I'm 100% certain that Obama needs to be reelected. I think Romney would be an economic disaster.


Unfortunately that makes less difference than Congress, and Congress, from what I read, is very likely to remain in Republican control. (They only need half the House and 38 or so Senators to do so).

Though Obama could probably keep them from enacting some of their worse ideas (repealing Obamacare, eviscerating Medicaid, etc.) But he's very likely to win in any case (we doubt 538 at our peril).

I used to worry that if Obama was re-elected we'd get another debt ceiling clusterfark that would actually lead to a default, imploding the economy. (Whereas GOP Congress would raise the debt ceiling for President Romney without a peep). However, Obama actually has some leverage now - the expiring Bush tax cuts. Complete gridlock would deal a double blow to Republicans: tax increases and defense cuts.
 
2012-09-07 12:33:35 PM  

ExperianScaresCthulhu: I'll be honest: I'll take that short term solution; I'll take it even more if it meant 30s style infrastructure 'we're going to employ you because you want to work regardless of education, credit or felonies' government programs. Get people employed, and then figure out the rest as you go.


This is idiotic. "Let's do things in the short term with no regard for how it might effect us in the long term. I'm sure we'll be fine." Guess what? We're not.
 
2012-09-07 12:33:36 PM  

skullkrusher: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: It is my desire that caused my suffering.

ooh, forgive me Siddhārtha


Forgiveness is never required. It is your nature to be a sophist. You cannot deny your nature.
 
2012-09-07 12:33:37 PM  

Graffito: I'm saying that we should vote for Obama because the last time a republican was in charge we were hemorrhaging jobs. Tepid job growth is preferable to massive job loss.


just curious, what specifically do you think that 0bama did to stop the job hemorrhaging?
 
2012-09-07 12:33:37 PM  

Dinki: ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.

What "total failure" Looks like-

[my.barackobama.com image 480x352]


They should mark where Obama starts leading the Democratic polls. That's the real sign.
 
2012-09-07 12:33:47 PM  
Is Fark running incredibly slowly for anyone else right now?
 
2012-09-07 12:39:32 PM  
BTW everyone understands that "left the workforce" is not the same as "Gave up looking for work" right?
 
2012-09-07 12:40:06 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Dinki: adiabat: From 2002-2008 the worst it ever got was 13.5%.


It's almost as if something pretty bad happened to the economy in 2008...

Yes, we elected 0bama.

Average number of jobs created per month in 2011: 153,000
Average number of jobs created per month in 2012: 139,000

Conclusion: but, but, but, bbbbuush!

Whatever 0bama thinks he is doing to create jobs has failed.


So Obama is creating jobs but not nearly as fast as people want but we should replace him with a man that does not provide any plan for adding jobs except tax cuts that are unpaid for... Romney won't even provide specifics as to how he's going to pay for the $5 trillion in tax cuts that favor the rich.

If the GOP candidates would provide a viable plan that passes the math test (none of their plans have done this) then we could have a debate... but as of right now all I hear from the GOP is "Trust us, we'll use the same plans we've used from 2001 to 2008 but this time it'll work... TRUST US!!!"

I'm sorry but I don't trust any politician especially those that refuse to provide specifics. Obama has provided a specific job plan.
 
2012-09-07 01:00:00 PM  
And we're back.
 
2012-09-07 01:01:16 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: A bunch of guys start running taco trucks to feed the diggers. The taco truck guys can now afford to see the doctor, who hires another nurse. The truck dealer can now send his kids to private school. Their teacher starts lunching at a taco truck because she's more overworked and it's convenient. A guy learns to fix machines at the shovel factory, later opening his own diesel garage.

Some of that does indeed persist once the spigot closes. Since most employment these days is in nontradable local services, it's not that hard to get a self-sustaining increase in employment.

Since unemployed people produce nothing, it's hard to make them less productive by paying them to do something. So much the better if it's something useful, but even make-work has macroeconomic value.


No, none of that persists when the spigot is turned off, at least not in aggregate. If the government creates 1000 jobs by creating debt, they are going to destroy 1000 jobs when the pay that debt down.
 
2012-09-07 01:02:00 PM  

DamnYankees: And we're back.


What happened, it was horrible. The whole universe blinked out for a minute.
 
2012-09-07 01:02:16 PM  

MattStafford: No, none of that persists when the spigot is turned off, at least not in aggregate. If the government creates 1000 jobs by creating debt, they are going to destroy 1000 jobs when the pay that debt down.


And how is this different from private enterprise?
 
Displayed 50 of 714 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report