14
   

Will Obamacare Destroy the Democrats?

 
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 12:59 pm
@firefly,
Firefly,
You, like the Obama administration, is grasping at straws trying to prove the success of the stimulus bill...but nobody will accept that it's worked if the job situation doesn't turn around. Over the past year, people have seized every little uptick in the jobs stats as "proof" that the stimulus is working, when in reality nothing is working as originally promised back in Jan 2009.

Just tracking Christina Romer thru her various interviews over the past year demonstrates...note how we're always just on the verge of recovery..

Date Mar 2009 in an interview with Larry King on CNN "Growing again by the end of 2009"
CNN wrote:

KING: Do you have any doubt at all that we will be on a path to growth in this year?

ROMER: I don't. I think the reason that -- I mean, I should say things could change, right? I'm not a fortune teller. I do feel strongly we've taken the right policies, the big bold fiscal stimulus, the financial rescue. As you talked about, there's going to be more announced this week.

What we're doing in housing; all of that for small businesses -- I think all of that is absolutely crucial.

And the reason we took them is we think they are the policies that the economy needs. And then we just saw the very aggressive action that the Federal Reserve has been taking.

So I think we are absolutely taking the right policies. I have every expectation, as do private forecasters, that we will bottom out this year and actually be growing again by the end of the year.


May 2009 "new jobless claims declining!"

source
Quote:

"We expect the economy to level out in the second half of the year and then begin to recover," Christina Romer, chairwoman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said in prepared remarks....She told reporters after the hearing that she was encouraged by weekly jobless data on Thursday that showed new claims unexpectedly declining and a closely watched four-week average of fresh applications for jobless benefits drop for the third straight week.


Jul 2009 "oops...maybe not"
source
Quote:
The unemployment rate, which is calculated from a survey of homes rather than companies, rose from 9.4pc to 9.5pc, its highest since August 1983.

Dr Christina Romer, who chairs the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said of the numbers: “Of course they are disappointing, I wish it had been better.”

She went on to point out however that even June’s job loss figure was substantially lower than the 600-700,000 monthly job loss figures occurring in the first quarter of the year.

“We are in for some more job losses but my hope and expectation is that we’ll go back to a pattern of moderating job losses,” she added.


Aug 2009 "Positive Growth by end of 2009...I promise"
source
Romer wrote:
The economy will show positive growth before the end of this year, she said, but it needs to be growing at around 2.5 percent just to keep unemployment from rising.


Sep 2009 "Still bad...but getting better"
source
Quote:
'The trajectory is in the right direction,' Christina Romer, chairwoman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, told CNBC television after the August payroll report showed a jump in the unemployment rate, but fewer job losses than expected.


Oct 2009 "...turned the corner..."
source
Quote:
The fact that the nation’s gross domestic economy grew in the third quarter is “incredibly important,” according to President Obama’s chief economist.

If nothing else, it shows that the US economy has turned the corner, moving from contraction to growth, said Christina Romer, chairman of the administration’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA).


Nov 2009 "but maybe we haven't turned the corner on jobs..."
source
Romer wrote:
The unemployment rate, however, rose four-tenths of a percentage point, to 10.2 percent. That this occurred despite the rise in real GDP last quarter reflects both the typical lag between GDP growth and unemployment decline, and the recent exceptional increases in productivity. Having the unemployment rate reach double-digits is a stark reminder of how much work remains to be done before American families see the job gains and reduced unemployment that they need and deserve.


Dec 2009 "Well I never claimed to have a crystal ball...but things are getting better"
source
Quote:
DR. ROMER: Well, you know, we, we were very encouraged last--the last
jobs report, when we saw the unemployment rate tick down. Again, I got to
emphasize, you know, how the change that we've seen, say, in GDP growth,
where we were just plummeting at the first quarter of this year, we're
now growing again. I'll tell you what most private forecasters are
telling us, is that GDP is going to continue to grow, if anything is
going to accelerate. Most of them are talking about positive job growth
sometime in the first quarter. So what usually happens is GDP starts to
grow, then employment starts to grow, then finally the unemployment rate
starts to come down.
<<snip>>
MR. GREGORY: And you thought that stimulus would keep unemployment to 8
percent, and it didn't. It didn't work.

DR. ROMER: I will be the first to say I didn't have a crystal ball. And
certainly I think, you know, what we learned--we learned...
<<snip>>
MR. GREGORY: By this time next year, where will unemployment be, in your
view?

DR. ROMER: Well, I'm--I feel confident it'll be on the way down. As I
said, we've talked about how there will, you know, very likely be further
rises before it, it comes down. You know, what I feel confident is, is
that we're on the right trajectory. And I think what the president has
committed to is doing all that we possibly can so that number comes down
much more dramatically, because that is ultimately what we have to do.


Feb 2010 "But it's not our fault...the model is wrong"
source
Quote:
“The usual relationship between G.D.P. growth and the unemployment rate has broken down somewhat,” Ms. Romer, who is on leave from the University of California, Berkeley, told reporters at the White House. “The unemployment rate has risen much more than one would have predicted.”





parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 01:03 pm
@slkshock7,
You just keep telling us how bad the economy is slk...

We wouldn't want you to say anything positive about the USA.
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 01:04 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Historically, the mid-term elections in Congress and the Senate have not been kind to the party of the President, and that has been the case pretty much since Lincoln, with only a few exceptions. Much more often than not, the party of the President in the White House does suffer losses, particularly during the first mid-term election of a presidency. Even when the President is popular, this only serves to help limit the losses, not prevent them.

So, among other things, the Democrats up for re-election in November do not have history on their side. Under the best of circumstances, they would likely suffer some losses. That is the way these election cycles seem to go.

If, by November, Obama's popularity is still in decline, the Democratic losses might be greater than if his popularity picks up again:

Quote:
First-term presidents who had sub-50% approval ratings at the midterms -- including Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton -- saw their parties suffer large congressional seat losses. In contrast, a recovery in Obama's approval rating -- particularly to above 60% -- could limit Democratic losses.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124076/political-climate-2010-not-favorable-democrats.aspx


That's one reason why health care reform had to be done now, while the Democrats had the votes to do it.

It's still a long way until November. And we have groups, like the Tea Partiers, who might push third party candidates, or who might turn against some of the Republican candidates, or who might otherwise split the Republican vote. It's really too early to call the outcome of the mid term elections just yet. A lot of factors are in play.
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 01:07 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cyclo wrote:
What is 'your side?' Surely you agree with me that these things would be good for all of us?


Don't twist my words...we aren't talking about what is good for all of us...we're talking about the effectiveness (or impotence) of the stimulus bill. "My side" is with those who feel that the Stimulus Bill was and is ineffective and we'd have been better off allowing the economy to recover on its own.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 01:10 pm
@slkshock7,
slkshock7 wrote:

Cyclo wrote:
What is 'your side?' Surely you agree with me that these things would be good for all of us?


Don't twist my words...we aren't talking about what is good for all of us...we're talking about the effectiveness (or impotence) of the stimulus bill. "My side" is with those who feel that the Stimulus Bill was and is ineffective and we'd have been better off allowing the economy to recover on its own.


As I said earlier - you will be hard-pressed to find economists who agree with you on that one.

Cycloptichorn
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 01:17 pm
@parados,
US free markets are good....capitalism is good...profits are good. The US military is good...our political system is genius...our standard of living is unequaled...noone in the world has more freedom or ability to enjoy those freedoms...our healthcare is expensive, but superior to any else found in the world...the economy is fine (when left to its own devices)...but our jobs recovery sucks....

Well except for that last little outburst, are you satisfied that I've said enough good things about the USA?
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 01:23 pm
@slkshock7,
Quote:
We'd have been better off letting the economy recovery on it's own?


slkshock7, wasn't it that kind of thinking, on the part of Republicans, that contributed to the Great Depression, and the Republicans' inability to deal with it--and consequently kept the Republicans out of the White House for 20 years?

Quote:
The stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression that followed had severe consequences for the Republicans, largely because of their unwillingness to combat the effects of the depression through direct government intervention in the economy. In the election of 1932, considered the country's third critical election, Republican incumbent President Herbert Hoover was overwhelmingly defeated by Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the Republicans were relegated to the status of a minority party. Roosevelt's three reelections (he was the only president to serve more than two terms), the succession of Harry S. Truman to the presidency on Roosevelt's death in 1945, and Truman's narrow election over New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey in 1948 kept the Republicans out of the White House for two decades. Although most Republicans in the 1930s vehemently opposed Roosevelt's New Deal social programs, by the 1950s the party had largely accepted the federal government's expanded role and regulatory powers.
http://www.britannica.com/presidents/article-233984


Did you want to see another Great Depression, slkshock7? I think we were coming close to it.

I think the economy is slowly improving. All indicators do point to that. A slow, but fairly steady improvement, is definitely preferable to continuing decline.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 01:32 pm
@slkshock7,
Quote:
the economy is fine (when left to its own devices)

So are you arguing that regulation of the economy led to the recession? Because NO ONE with any sense would agree with you on that point.
0 Replies
 
MASSAGAT
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 01:49 pm
Parados and Cyclops show their unremitting ignorance. The Unemployment Rate is still stuck at a very high 9.7%. Parados and Cyclops probably do not understand that any number above 8% when the election is held in November will cause a large number of Democrats in the House and Senate to lose their jobs.

Note:

U.S. employers created jobs at the fastest pace in three years in March, but the unemployment rate held steady at 9.7%, indicating the labor market has still some way to go to recover.

The Labor Department said in a report Friday that nonfarm payrolls rose by 162,000 in March, the largest gain since March 2007. That compared with a revised 14,000 drop in February, when the number was likely depressed by the blizzards that hit the East Coast.
.Economists polled by Dow Jones Newswires were expecting payrolls to rise by an even higher 200,000. The February figure was revised upward from an originally reported 36,000 decline.

Taking into account revisions to prior months, the U.S. economy added an average of 54,000 jobs a month in the first quarter, fueling optimism about the job market's recovery.

However, the 2010 decennial Census accounted for 48,000 of the employment boost last month. As those jobs will be lost in the second half of the year, economists cautioned not to read too much into the headline figure. Another 40,000 of the increase came in other temporary jobs.


.As a reminder of the labor market's continued weakness, the unemployment rate stayed at 9.7% last month, in line with economists' expectations. The jobless rate is calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics using a different, household survey.
***********************************************************************

Paradox and Cyclops, are, of course, too ignorant of Economics to do some real research. It is not difficult to do. When one goes to the figures given out by the Board of Labor Statistics( easily available on the Internet) and references the U-6 figures, it is clear that the REAL unemployment rate is about 16%. Yes, 16% because the U-6 figures include a. those working PART TIME who need a FULL TIME job( see above article about part time hirees and those people who have exhausted their unemployment benefits and are still not working.

*************************************************************************

I continue to read meaningless blurbs given by Parados and Cyclops that really shed no light on the situation because they are knee-jerk responses from the far left that have no evidence to back them up.

*************************************************************************

I am sure that Cyclops and Parados do not know that despite the fact that factory production is rising, THERE IS LITTLE OR NO HIRING!

Why? for the same reason that Roosevelt was unable to get the US out of the Great Recession of the thirties until war preparations began- BUSINESS DOES NOT TRUST AND WILL NOT TRUST MADMEN IN THE OVAL OFFICE WHO MAY PRESS FOR IDIOTIC HEALTH CARE REFORMS WHICH WILL KILL THEIR BUSINESS OR FOR MORONIC CAP AND TRADE IDEAS WHICH WILL CAUSE THEM TO FIRE MORE PEOPLE.

But the realities of such truths have escaped people like Paradox and Cyclops--or perhaps they are really aware of those realities but wish to press on to a Socialistic State.

As Mark wrote--From each according to his abilities( here read Corporations and successful striving people) and to each according to his needs( here read the rabble who voted for Obama in 2008).
0 Replies
 
MASSAGAT
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 01:59 pm
Firefly wrote:

I think the economy is slowly improving. All indicators do point to that. A slow, but fairly steady improvement, is definitely preferable to continuing decline.
end of quote
I am sorry, firefly, but statistics do not agree with you. The Unemployment Rate is the same. 9.7%. If might have been higher if it had not been for the hiring of TEMPORARY WORKERS FOR THE CENSUS.

You seem to be a rational person and not an unthinking partisan. If factory orders, for example, are inching upward, why are businesses not hiring. Any review of History will show that when business is uncertain of the future and do not know what idiocies a leader may suggest in the pursuit of Socialism for all such as Cap and Trade, THEY DO NOT HIRE and will load up present employees with the additional work.

Proof of my statement? Look at the rise in PRODUCTIVITY in the USA. You may know what it is. If preoductivity rises 5%, that means that workers do 5% more work in a given year than the last year, That means that Business does not have to hire. Workers, knowing that there are NO jobs to be had, cling to their present jobs even if the work load is higher.

Please attempt to research the reasons why businesses are not hiring. I think you will find that Business do not trust the President. I think you will find that businesses are afraid to hire since the President will try to bring even more trouble on to them in the form of stupidies such as "cap and trade".

I can, of course, give evidence and documentation to show that "cap and trade" will bring disasterous costs on to businesses. If you think that business will hire under those conditions, you know little about Economics.
0 Replies
 
MASSAGAT
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 02:00 pm
Slkshock wrote:

but our jobs recovery sucks....

***************************************

Precisely- and despite all of the dissembling by the Socialists in DC, it will continue to "suck".

Parodox and Cyclops, as to be expected, write off any commentator who says this as a right wing partisan.

Even if we accept that knee-jerk statement, we are faced with the reality that the President's own Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Geithner, agrees that Employment will not get better for a long time.

Note:


Jobless Rate Will Stay 'Unacceptably' High: Geithner
Published: Thursday, 1 Apr 2010 | 7:12 AM ET Text Size By: CNBC.com
Focusing on cutting the US's big budget deficit now would jeopardize economic growth at a time when jobs are starting to be created, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told NBC's "Today" show Thursday.


Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


But even if that occurs, the unemployment rate will stay high for "a long period of time," Geithner said.

"We're just at the point now where the economy's likely to start creating jobs on net. That means incomes are going to grow, businesses are going to invest more going forward. And we'll come out of this," he said

The deficit is expected to rise to about $1.56 trillion dollars, or about 10.5 percent of gross domestic product, this year and some analysts expressed concern that it could lead to a downgrade of the US debt's AAA rating.

"Right now we need to make sure that we are doing everything we can to get this economy growing again, and creating jobs," Geithner said.

"If all you focus on right now is trying to cut the deficit too quickly right now, that will imperil growth, we'll have a weaker economy, and people will be living with higher unemployment for a longer period of time. We're not going to let that happen," he added.
0 Replies
 
MASSAGAT
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 02:13 pm
quote from above column about Obama's Secretary of State:

The deficit is expected to rise to about $1.56 trillion dollars, or about 10.5 percent of gross domestic product, this year and some analysts expressed concern that it could lead to a downgrade of the US debt's AAA rating.

*******************************************************************

Well, if that occurs, and there is a chance that it may, the AMERICAN PUBLIC, not Barack Hussein Obama, will be paying more taxes because as everyone who knows anything about Economics( this, of course, leaves out Parados and Cyclops) knows that a lowered debt rating causes borrowing costs to go higher. Maybe that is part of Obama's plan. When the US goes bankrupt, he can turn it into a banana republic.
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 02:14 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
That wasn't difficult....after about 10 minutes of googling.

Peter Morici...Univ of MD and former Chief Economist of US International Trade Commission

George Bittlingmayer, Wagnon Distinguished Professor of Finance at the School of Business, University of Kansas.

Arthur Havenner (UC Davis)

Thomas Hazlett (GMU) Former FCC Chief Economist

Of course this doesn't count the 200 or so economists that signed the CATO institue document saying it wouldn't work in 2009. Now perhaps you can find and name four economists that say it's been a success (and who don't incidently work for Obama)? In fact, most economists say that it may have had some minor impact, but will eventually be judged a failure unless it is proven to have created jobs, which it currently is failing miserably at.

Heck, even Paul Krugman claims that the stimulus bill didn't work to create jobs but uses entirely different reasoning...he thinks it was too small.

Paul Krugman wrote:
The 2009 Obama stimulus bill was focused on restoring economic growth. It was, in effect, based on the belief that if you build G.D.P., the jobs will come. That strategy might have worked if the stimulus had been big enough " but it wasn’t.
MASSAGAT
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 02:17 pm
@slkshock7,
Slkshock7- A great post on the economy and Dr. Romer's predictions. But, now, wouldn't it be nice if those who think that President Obama is really steering the country to better things and that the economy will be so much better if only they would follow him without question?

You won't get and documentation or evidence from people like Parados or Cyclops, Slkshock7. Scroll the posts. They never give evidence or documentation or testimony from experts like you have done. They merely make smarmy and meaningless comments.

Keep up your great research and share it with those who wish to read it!
0 Replies
 
MASSAGAT
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 02:28 pm
Cyclops wrote:

Bullshit. Republican obstructionism absolutely delayed the HC bill, as well as complete lies and falsehoods perpetrated throughout the media (death panels? c'mon). The Republicans in the House were especially shameless in dragging the thing out.
***************************************************************

First of all, Cyclops is completely clueless about the fact that in the great Socialistic health plan in England, Doctors and Hospitals are not allowed, as we are in the USA, to utilize heroic measures( which, of course, cost more money) to keep elderly people alive. I have a great deal of documentation about the English system and I defy Cyclopian to refute that point, Now, maybe Cyclops does not have parents. I do and my mother has been kept alive in fairly good shape by some "heroic' interventions. Of course, people like Cyclops would like those people to be dispatched earlier so that Obama can keep his Obamian Health Care costs down. Cyclops does not remember that the great one in office of the Presidency commented that one of his relatives might not have needed a hip replacement--because of the cost--and might have done as well on pain killers. Only people like Obama and Cyclops could be so heartless in search of control of one sixth of the Economy for political gain.

Secondly, it would appear that Cyclops does not remember that the Democrats, which indeed controlled the House and Senate and SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PUSH THE LEGISLATION THROUGH HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THE RESISTANCE OF D E M O C R A T S IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE-
not Republicans.

Cyclops is profoundly ignorant!!!!!!
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 02:39 pm
@slkshock7,
Dude, you do realize that the Stim bill is not the same thing as a 'jobs' bill? The purpose of it was only partially to create new jobs. You are moving the goalposts to suit your argument.

I mean hell, a third of the Stim bill was tax cuts to individuals. They improve the economy slightly overall but don't create jobs specifically.

Do you have links for those names, or did you just kinda pick them out from somewhere?

Cycloptichorn
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 02:42 pm
@MASSAGAT,
MASSAGAT wrote:



Cyclops is profoundly ignorant!!!!!!


Yes!
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 03:24 pm
@slkshock7,
I would add that over 70% of the Republicans in the House have specifically taken credit for jobs which were created in their districts due to the Stim bill. For a bunch of people who claim that it didn't create or keep jobs, your side sure loves to turn right around and congratulate themselves when it actually does.

Cycloptichorn
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 03:54 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Me...changing the goal posts!!!! That's what Obama and the Dems have been doing practically since the ARRA was signed into law. Are you actually asserting that the main premise of the ARRA wasn't to create jobs? Please provide some links of your own from back in Jan/Feb 2009 that don't tie those two concepts together.

The fairly recently passed jobs bill that I think you are referring to is yet another admission that the ARRA failed to stimulate jobs adequately....

I do have links for those names...which you could discover yourself with a quick google search.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 03:58 pm
@slkshock7,
slkshock7 wrote:

Me...changing the goal posts!!!! That's what Obama and the Dems have been doing practically since the ARRA was signed into law. Are you actually asserting that the main premise of the ARRA wasn't to create jobs? Please provide some links of your own from back in Jan/Feb 2009 that don't tie those two concepts together.

The fairly recently passed jobs bill that I think you are referring to is yet another admission that the ARRA failed to stimulate jobs adequately....

I do have links for those names...which you could discover yourself with a quick google search.


Oh, I know you got them from an article at the NRO. I was just wondering if you would provide the link; it's customary to do so when claiming proof.

As for the stim bill, part of the purpose was to create jobs; the other 2 legs of it were, per wikipedia:

Quote:
The stimulus was intended to create jobs and promote investment and consumer spending during the recession.


2 out of 3 ain't bad.

You seem to pretend that it was NOTHING but a jobs bill, and that's simply false. It's just the metric that looks the worst right now, so you have latched right on to it in order to attack your political opponents. If the jobs situation was looking good, you would simply search for something else to criticize.

Cycloptichorn
 

Related Topics

Immortality and Doctor Volkov - Discussion by edgarblythe
Sleep Paralysis - Discussion by Nick Ashley
On the edge and toppling off.... - Discussion by Izzie
Surgery--Again - Discussion by Roberta
PTSD, is it caused by a blow to the head? - Question by Rickoshay75
THE GIRL IS ILL - Discussion by Setanta
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/07/2021 at 05:16:28