14
   

Is the RNC disappointed in today's jobs report?

 
 
JPB
 
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 06:42 am
I mentioned yesterday that I believe the Republican party has an image problem. That the party is perceived by some independent voters as willfully and intentionally keeping the economy suppressed in order to defeat President Obama in November. It was called the "absolute dumbest" comment ever made on A2K by a Republican. I stand by the comment and truly believe that folks at the RNC and at Romney/Ryan headquarters are disappointed that the unemployment number (as bogus a number as it is) has just been reported at 8.1% down from 8.3%.

What do you think? Has the Republican brand been so tarnished that folks like me see them as more concerned about winning than improving the economy?
 
maxdancona
 
  4  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 07:00 am
@JPB,
You don't understand JPB. It is a plot. Obama has been scheming to lower the unemployment number.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 07:28 am
@JPB,
Quote:
IIt was called the "absolute dumbest" comment ever made on A2K by a Republican

I get the sense that you are talking about me. lol But, just so you know, you will have to try harder because I read a dumber one by a republican member, so your comment is now only the second dumbest. And I'm sure it will continue to fall as the election season wears on.

As for the RNC being disappointed that the number went down, neither you nor I know for certain if this is true, so it is a foolish thing to believe it is so. That said, I don't doubt that some in the Romney camp would not have been upset had the number stayed steady or gone up since they would perceive this as enhancing their chances of winning in Nov. Of course, if the shoe were on the other foot, the dems could be accused of the same thing and it would also be just as accurate. After all, these are politicians we are talking about and all the really care about is power and getting re-elected to keep that power.

Oh yeah, and just to be clear, I called your comment dumb, not you. I've had people twist what I write and take great offense because they thought I was insulting them. That was not the case with calling your comment dumb. I'm quite sure others think some of my comments are dumb, and that's ok with me. But anyway, I just wanted to make sure you knew that. Hope you didn't take my comment personally. It was not meant that way.
tsarstepan
 
  4  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 07:38 am
@JPB,
Quote:
I stand by the comment and truly believe that folks at the RNC and at Romney/Ryan headquarters are disappointed that the unemployment number (as bogus a number as it is) has just been reported at 8.1% down from 8.3%.

I stand by your comment and sentiment as well. From day 1 of Obama's presidency, the Republican hierarchy were bent on Obama's failure and had no intention of helping him and thusly the country succeed.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 07:40 am
@CoastalRat,
Quote:
Hope you didn't take my comment personally.


Not at all.

Quote:
After all, these are politicians we are talking about and all the really care about is power and getting re-elected to keep that power.


Which is why I'm more likely than not to vote for a third party alternative candidate in most election cycles.

Quote:
neither you nor I know for certain if this is true, so it is a foolish thing to believe it is so.


I'm talking about perceptions. It sounds like you agree with me, in a sense, that our political process has become about party power over people. I think it's a wider view of the Rs than the Ds, but I think they're, more often than not, in it for themselves than for the people they represent. Btw, I have a similar view on labor unions and other large "trust us to represent your interest" groups.
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 08:13 am
@JPB,
Quote:
I'm talking about perceptions. It sounds like you agree with me, in a sense, that our political process has become about party power over people. I think it's a wider view of the Rs than the Ds, but I think they're, more often than not, in it for themselves than for the people they represent. Btw, I have a similar view on labor unions and other large "trust us to represent your interest" groups.

I think the two of us would find a lot of common ground in our views. There is little I would disagree with in your post. Dang, does this mean the world really is going to end this year?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 10:06 am
@JPB,
JPB wrote:
I stand by the comment and truly believe that folks at the RNC and at Romney/Ryan headquarters are disappointed that the unemployment number (as bogus a number as it is) has just been reported at 8.1% down from 8.3%.

What do you think? Has the Republican brand been so tarnished that folks like me see them as more concerned about winning than improving the economy?

Having read the rest of the report, I think Republicans can live with it. Most of the decline in unemployment reflects frustrated workers who have given up looking, not happy workers (I guess) who have found work. As long as the percentage of workers who have work is shrinking, as it currently does, the Republicans needn't be disappointed.
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 10:16 am
@JPB,
The % dropped, but that doesn't mean anything seeing as only 96,000 jobs were added. 8.1% only shows that more people dropped off of the unemployment rolls without finding work. This is not good news for the Obama Administration.
JPB
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 10:21 am
@Baldimo,
I don't think it's bad news for him either. Remember, the impression is that it's the Rs who are intentionally keeping the economy depressed and won't extend unemployment benefits. 96,000 new non-farm jobs is less than 100,000. Not bad when your political adversaries are doing everything possible to make it worse.
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 10:44 am
@JPB,
But it still means that workers are losing ground, because the economy needs 150,000 new jobs each month to keep up with labor-force growth.

I don't imagine any elaborate dialogue in voters' heads as they enter the polling booth. ("On the one hand, employment is stalling, on the other, maybe it's the Republicans fault, yet back on the one hand . . . .") More likely, they ask themselves if they're better off now than they were a year ago, vote for the incumbent if the answer is "yes", and vote for the challenger if it's "no". This months developments in the labor market do nothing to weaken the Republicans' chances. Not saying I like it, but it doesn't.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 11:20 am
@Thomas,
The Dems should harp on the republican beat Obama even at the cost of the voters bottom line. There are enough of the top republicans who have stated this is their objective that they cant claim otherwise.
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 04:24 pm
@RABEL222,
Keep in mind this was only after the 2010 election. Obama had a Dem controlled Congress for the first 2 years of his admin.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Sep, 2012 08:33 am
@Thomas,
But if it was that simple then the Dems would regain control of the House.

Voters look at a lot of things, one of which is do they agree with the person they are voting for.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Sep, 2012 08:34 am
@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:

Keep in mind this was only after the 2010 election. Obama had a Dem controlled Congress for the first 2 years of his admin.

But he had a filibuster proof Senate for less than 2 months.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2012 01:21 am
@JPB,
Of course the Republican Party would have preferred to see the Unemployment Rate rise to 8.4 rather than fall to 8.1.

Just as the Democrat Party would have if the roles were reversed.

If you think that that the Democrat brand shines brightly while the Republican brand is flat and dull, your perception is biased.

To be charitable, the Republicans believe that if they win power they can lower the rate well below 8.1% and if the Dems keep their level of power it will rise higher. In such a setting, if a temporary worsening of conditions is necessary to usher in the real solution, so be it.

The Dems use the same rationalization.

Having said all of this, I think the public has been sufficently educated to realize that this particular drop in the rate is entirely illusory and has only been "achieved" because hundred of thousands of out-of-work Americans have given up.

I've yet to hear the Administration or any Dem crowing about this decrease and so I suspect they realize the public won't be fooled in this regard.

Anyone who thinks the Republican Party is a society of saints who care only for the good of the nation, is as much an idiot as those who believe the same about the Democrats.

I continue to contend that there are far more such Democrat idiots than Republican. Conservatives don't view Government as the answer to any but a few problems and are not inclined to believe a political party seeking to run the government can be our saviors. Liberals, on the other hand, see Government as the answer to virtually all of our problems and so are far more inclined to invest a lot of emotion in the party of those they want to run it.

revelette
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2012 11:47 am
If Rupublicans had passed the Jobs Bill, perhaps the jobs report would have looked better. Still, at least we are not shedding jobs at the rate we were under Bush.

Quote:
President Obama's jobs proposal would help stabilize confidence and keep the U.S. from sliding back into recession.

The plan would add 2 percentage points to GDP growth next year, add 1.9 million jobs, and cut the unemployment rate by a percentage point.

The plan would cost about $450 billion, about $250 billion in tax cuts and $200 billion in spending increases.

Many of the president's proposals are unlikely to pass Congress, but the most important have a chance of winning bipartisan support.

President Obama’s much-anticipated jobs plan is a laudable effort to support the struggling economy. The plan would go a long way toward stabilizing confidence, forestalling another recession, and jump-starting a self-sustaining economic expansion. If fully implemented, the Obama jobs plan would increase real GDP growth in 2012 by 2 percentage points, add 1.9 million jobs, and reduce the unemployment rate by a full percentage point, compared with current fiscal policy.

source

Quote:
Overall the package would increase employment by about 4.3 million jobs over the next couple of years. The new initiatives would boost employment by about 2.6 million jobs, while the continuation of the two temporary provisions (EUI and the payroll tax holiday) would prevent a backslide of over 1.6 million jobs.

There’s still a big hole left to fill, but every step matters.


source

Quote:
American Jobs Act: A Significant Boost to GDP and Employment

We estimate that the American Jobs Act (AJA), if enacted, would give a significant boost to GDP and employment over the near-term.

•The various tax cuts aimed at raising workers’ after-tax income and encouraging hiring and investing, combined with the spending increases aimed at maintaining state & local employment and funding infrastructure modernization, would:

•Boost the level of GDP by 1.3% by the end of 2012, and by 0.2% by the end of 2013.

•Raise nonfarm establishment employment by 1.3 million by the end of 2012 and 0.8 million by the end of 2013, relative to the baseline.

•The program works directly to raise employment through tax incentives and support to state & local governments for increasing hiring; it works indirectly through the positive boost to aggregate demand (and hence hiring) stimulated by the direct spending and the increase in household income resulting from lower employee payroll taxes and increased employment.


source
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2012 12:43 pm
@revelette,
How many jobs have been created by waiving welfare work requirements?
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2012 12:47 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
As long as the percentage of workers who have work is shrinking, as it currently does, the Republicans needn't be disappointed.
the quality of the jobs keeps degrading as well...the vast majority of the few jobs which have been created are low wage low/no benefit jobs.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2012 12:52 pm
@hawkeye10,
True, and it's also likely that many of the good jobs cannot be filled by someone who has been out of work for two years or more. If they can, that still doesn't mean employers will grab them instead of someone with current skills.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2012 12:52 pm
@hawkeye10,
it bothers me that i am going to vote for romney after his party has actively worked to see america not do well under a dem president, but I have bigger fish to fry. i think that throwing every single politician out of washington until they as a group decide to work together for America is my patriotic duty. I will hold my nose and do it.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is the RNC disappointed in today's jobs report?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.15 seconds on 06/26/2019 at 03:51:49