Obama showing a backbone? Shocking!
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obama-bus-tour-20110817,0,5073945.story
QuoteObama dares Republicans to block his coming jobs package
The president, visiting the Midwest, pledges to send Congress a plan in September and challenges Republicans to block it. Not all Democrats are comfortable with his hard-line stance.
Obama in Iowa
By James Oliphant, Washington Bureau
August 16, 2011, 6:58 p.m.
Reporting from Davenport, Iowa—
After pledging to send a job-creation package to Congress next month and daring Republicans to block it, President Obama offered few specifics Tuesday about the form the plan might take as he stuck to a broad outline of how to improve the economy.
On the second day of Obama's three-day bus tour of the upper Midwest, the president worked off the blueprint he had used the day before, offering proposals such as extending a payroll tax cut, spending money to repair roads and bridges, and ratifying pending trade agreements.
And he continued to hammer away at Republicans in Congress, suggesting they stand in the way of economic growth, even as some Democrats expressed discomfort with what they saw as a potentially divisive stance.
"We could do even more if Congress is willing to get in the game," Obama said to a gathering of small-business owners, community leaders and rural development experts at a small college in Peosta, Iowa.
"There are bipartisan ideas — common-sense ideas — that have traditionally been supported by Democrats and Republicans that will put more money in your pockets, that will put our people to work, that will allow us to deal with the legacy of debt that hangs over our economy," he said.
Republicans pushed back by escalating their criticism of Obama's trip, calling it nothing more than a glorified campaign swing at taxpayer expense.
"This week taxpayers made a donation to the Obama reelection campaign. No matter what the president says, his Midwest bus tour is nothing but a campaign trip," said Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee. "He's talking about campaigning against Congress and doling out talking points, not policy plans."
Congressional Democrats and former administration officials gave a mixed review of Obama's declaration. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) welcomed the president's feistier tone.
"I heard more of that approach yesterday than I've heard in a while, and I think it's very important," she said in an interview. "He needs to say now, 'I've tried it your way, and now we have to create an aggressive approach to creating jobs.' "
But one Senate Democrat, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about the White House, was troubled by the president's gambit.
Voters are tired of the partisan back-and-forth and it would be a mistake for Obama to present Congress with a large-scale, high-stakes jobs bill and challenge them to pass it, the senator said. A more sensible approach would be for Obama to roll out a series of smaller proposals, the senator said, adding that the public "has very little patience for anything that looks like you're beating up on the other side."
Jared Bernstein, a former economic advisor to Vice President Joe Biden, said it was futile for Obama to try to accommodate Republicans determined to block the White House agenda. "If the president frames his jobs agenda based on what Republicans will accept, I don't think he's going to end up with much," he said. "He has to prescribe what he and his team believes the country needs and fight for it."
White House spokesman Jay Carney wouldn't comment on the shape or the scope of the plan or say whether it would take the form of legislation.
But Carney reiterated the president's threat that if Congress failed to act, Obama would not hesitate to leverage that failure politically.
"If they don't do it," Carney said, "he will take his arguments to the American people."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Republicans were waiting to act on pending trade deals with Colombia, Panama and South Korea, but he complained that the White House hadn't sent them to Capitol Hill.
Carney said the administration was working with Senate leaders on an agreement for submitting the treaties for ratification.
Obama didn't spend his entire day in Iowa talking economic policy. He stopped at a high school in Maquoketa and visited a volleyball practice, bought ice cream cones for his aides in DeWitt and shopped at an antique store in LeClaire.
The president will wrap up his tour Wednesday with two town hall events in Illinois before he returns to Washington.
[email protected]
Lisa Mascaro and Peter Nicholas in the Washington bureau contributed to this report.
You interested in his package, DG?
I thought Obama not infrequently would make those sort of noises only to compromise later as he doesn't have enough command of his party to really stand on the former stance.
QuotePresident Obama offered few specifics Tuesday about the form the plan might take as he stuck to a broad outline of how to improve the economy.
Shocking.
You shouldn't play chicken when the other side has no qualms about running yo uover.
Quote from: derspiess on August 17, 2011, 11:34:22 AM
QuotePresident Obama offered few specifics Tuesday about the form the plan might take as he stuck to a broad outline of how to improve the economy.
Shocking.
Eh even if he did offer specifics who cares? It is not like when he does it really means anything.
Let's see his backbone after Republicans block it.
Quote from: DGuller on August 17, 2011, 11:38:48 AM
Let's see his backbone after Republicans block it.
If they block it he can run against them on that issue. If they pass it and the economy improves he can run on it. That sounds like a win win situation to me.
The only danger is if he passes it and the economy doesn't improve.
Let's see how much it would add to the deficit.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 17, 2011, 11:53:32 AM
Let's see how much it would add to the deficit.
Let's see what happens when President Romney/Perry/Bachman/some other goddamn loon passes a similar bill in the first year or their presidency. You think anyone in the GOP is going to call out them out on any possible deficit problems?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 17, 2011, 11:49:00 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 17, 2011, 11:38:48 AM
Let's see his backbone after Republicans block it.
If they block it he can run against them on that issue.
Yes, he can, but he won't. Instead he will agree to lower the capital gains tax to -10% in exchange for Republicans allowing him to pass 1/3rd of the jobs bill.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2011, 11:56:49 AM
Let's see what happens when President Romney/Perry/Bachman/some other goddamn loon passes a similar bill in the first year or their presidency. You think anyone in the GOP is going to call out them out on any possible deficit problems?
I would expect some people to, but I don't know for sure.
What's your point? That since we know Republicans will be mad deficit spenders when in power we should extend the same courtesy to Obama?
You know Raz, a little while ago you were arguing that the best way to achieve deficit reduction would be to vote all Republicans out of office. So which is it, that Democrats are OSSUM deficit fighters or that deficits don't matter?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2011, 11:56:49 AM
Let's see what happens when President Romney/Perry/Bachman/some other goddamn loon passes a similar bill in the first year or their presidency. You think anyone in the GOP is going to call out them out on any possible deficit problems?
Yes. The next GOP administration (whenever it happens) will not be a repeat of the Bush years.
Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2011, 11:38:35 AM
Eh even if he did offer specifics who cares? It is not like when he does it really means anything.
I think it would mean a lot. Particularly since he's already talking about how he'd use it against the GOP if they were against it.
I really hope it includes a huge extension on unemployment benefits, since the administration seems to think that's a good way to get people back to work.
I would think the TP would be pretty hard on a spendy GOP president too. If McCain had won, we'd still have the backlash against debt. Only he'd probably draw more serious primary challenges than Obama.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 17, 2011, 12:39:07 PM
I would think the TP would be pretty hard on a spendy GOP president too. If McCain had won, we'd still have the backlash against debt. Only he'd probably draw more serious primary challenges than Obama.
It was just a total coincidence that they showed up once Obama got elected. Likewise it was a total coincidence the anti-war movement died once Obama got elected.
They showed up before Obama got elected.
Quote from: derspiess on August 17, 2011, 12:22:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2011, 11:56:49 AM
Let's see what happens when President Romney/Perry/Bachman/some other goddamn loon passes a similar bill in the first year or their presidency. You think anyone in the GOP is going to call out them out on any possible deficit problems?
Yes. The next GOP administration (whenever it happens) will not be a repeat of the Bush years.
Yeah the Dems said the same fucking thing yet here we are.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 17, 2011, 12:50:55 PM
They showed up before Obama got elected.
:yeahright: If they did it was just before.
Quote from: derspiess on August 17, 2011, 12:22:41 PM
Yes. The next GOP administration (whenever it happens) will not be a repeat of the Bush years.
The Bush administration was not supposed to be a repeat of the Reagan years either.
Yet...
You got masssive spendings approved by a majority GOP Congress.
Most of these expenses were for:
[/list][/list]
- A war in Iraq where the leaders of the country tought that praying would be sufficient to win the war, and as such no planning for the aftermath was necessary
- a butched operation in Afghanistan since all resources were diverted to Iraq instead of gathering intelligence on Al-Queida
- a tax cut for the very rich, wich had zero influence on the economy, and only delayed the inevitable
- inept leadership in the face of economic turmoil, some banks were helped, some were not, confusing signals sent the markets spiraling down
- help to US auto makers, wich the next govt had no choice but to continue
- creation of new agencies, and multiplication of existing hierarchy to deal with new problems
- ideologically motivated spending and cutting with regards to scientific research
Except for the 2 "hot" wars, I just don't see how it's different from Reagan. He did run a very large deficit by increasing spending and reducing taxes, surfing on Carter's reform and pushing the country into recession by the end of its mandate. He also socialized banks to avoid a big crisis, wich exploded while Bush Sr was in power, hence, in his case too, delaying the inevitable.
Clinton came, reduced spending, manage the deficit, paid back part of the debt, then Bush came in, did everything Reagan did with the same consequences, even worst, as he was unable to capture US Ennemy #1 while he was in US grasp as early as 2001. Oh, and he dismantled the team charged with capturing him in 2005 saying it was not important to find him.
All the while, he was supported in all he did by a Republican Congress. Most of the same people still there today, pretending to be what's best for the US economy.
Frankly, I fail to see how anyone could believe them. They are accomplices to one of the worst government in US history and now they tell us they've had a change of heart and will do things totally different if only they re-gained power? I don't know about you, but I tend not to vote for this kind of people since, as history has proven, they keep repeating the same mistakes over&over.
The Democrats could be better if they had a President with a backbone, but it seems Obama is just as inept as Bush, the constant prayers in less.
I don't see a bright future the world's economy until someone can truly take the US #1 spot.
Could have been Canada, like in Barb Wire :P , but we've decided it's more important to look at the past than the future.
Quote from: derspiess on August 17, 2011, 12:27:33 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2011, 11:38:35 AM
Eh even if he did offer specifics who cares? It is not like when he does it really means anything.
I think it would mean a lot. Particularly since he's already talking about how he'd use it against the GOP if they were against it.
I really hope it includes a huge extension on unemployment benefits, since the administration seems to think that's a good way to get people back to work.
Well I guess that is true and to the extent it is good politics he will but just like his balanced budget proposals I doubt it will make much difference in convincing anybody or moving policy forward.
Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2011, 01:07:43 PM
Well I guess that is true and to the extent it is good politics he will but just like his balanced budget proposals I doubt it will make much difference in convincing anybody or moving policy forward.
Did he release any details in his balanced budget proposals? I remember hearing $4 billion or whatever, but I never heard where that was going to come from?
Maybe I'm not giving President Obama the benefit of the doubt he so richly deserves, but when I hear his administration talk about a "Jobs Bill" without any details, I assume it's just going to be more 'stimulus' spending that will again fall far short of promised job creation results.
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 12:57:35 PM
The Bush administration was not supposed to be a repeat of the Reagan years either.
Why wouldn't they have wanted to repeat the Reagan years? That seems to be the gold standard for GOP pols.
Quote from: citizen k on August 17, 2011, 01:26:39 PM
Why wouldn't they have wanted to repeat the Reagan years? That seems to be the gold standard for GOP pols.
Yeah I am pretty sure that was the idea.
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 12:57:35 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 17, 2011, 12:22:41 PM
Yes. The next GOP administration (whenever it happens) will not be a repeat of the Bush years.
The Bush administration was not supposed to be a repeat of the Reagan years either.
Yet...
You got masssive spendings approved by a majority GOP Congress.
Most of these expenses were for:
[/list][list=a]
- A war in Iraq where the leaders of the country tought that praying would be sufficient to win the war
:lmfao:
Stopped reading right there...
Crazy much?[/list][/list]
Quote from: derspiess on August 17, 2011, 01:25:39 PM
Did he release any details in his balanced budget proposals? I remember hearing $4 billion or whatever, but I never heard where that was going to come from?
Maybe I'm not giving President Obama the benefit of the doubt he so richly deserves, but when I hear his administration talk about a "Jobs Bill" without any details, I assume it's just going to be more 'stimulus' spending that will again fall far short of promised job creation results.
See I just presumed it is a political tactic without the intention of producing any results. Anyway Obama has been in power now for 2.5 years he no longer gets the benefit of the doubt.
Quote from: citizen k on August 17, 2011, 01:26:39 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 12:57:35 PM
The Bush administration was not supposed to be a repeat of the Reagan years either.
Why wouldn't they have wanted to repeat the Reagan years? That seems to be the gold standard for GOP pols.
Well the idea was to repeat the "Mythic Reagan" years, not the real Reagan. Mythic Reagan was a hero who saved the economy and destroyed the Soviets with harsh words. Real Reagan was a bit more nuanced.
Quote from: derspiess on August 17, 2011, 01:25:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2011, 01:07:43 PM
Well I guess that is true and to the extent it is good politics he will but just like his balanced budget proposals I doubt it will make much difference in convincing anybody or moving policy forward.
Did he release any details in his balanced budget proposals? I remember hearing $4 billion or whatever, but I never heard where that was going to come from?
$3 Trillion in cuts, $1 Trillion in tax raises. The GOP should have taken it, they got way less in the end by insisting on no tax hikes.
Quote from: Berkut on August 17, 2011, 01:49:51 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 12:57:35 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 17, 2011, 12:22:41 PM
Yes. The next GOP administration (whenever it happens) will not be a repeat of the Bush years.
The Bush administration was not supposed to be a repeat of the Reagan years either.
Yet...
You got masssive spendings approved by a majority GOP Congress.
Most of these expenses were for:
[/list][list=a]
- A war in Iraq where the leaders of the country tought that praying would be sufficient to win the war
:lmfao:
Stopped reading right there...
Crazy much?[/list][/list]
really, what was the plan for post-war Iraq, I mean, to stabilize the country once Saddam was toppled? What has been done within the 1st year post-Saddam?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 17, 2011, 12:14:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2011, 11:56:49 AM
Let's see what happens when President Romney/Perry/Bachman/some other goddamn loon passes a similar bill in the first year or their presidency. You think anyone in the GOP is going to call out them out on any possible deficit problems?
I would expect some people to, but I don't know for sure.
What's your point? That since we know Republicans will be mad deficit spenders when in power we should extend the same courtesy to Obama?
You know Raz, a little while ago you were arguing that the best way to achieve deficit reduction would be to vote all Republicans out of office. So which is it, that Democrats are OSSUM deficit fighters or that deficits don't matter?
I'm not sure how the fuck you came to that conclusion. We can't realistically achieve deficit reduction without raising taxes. Nearly every Republican has signed an oath not to raise taxes. This makes Republicans impediments to deficit reduction. And yes, before you start, Democrats have agreed to cuts. They have no ideological straight jacket that says "No, we can't cut government spending".
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2011, 08:49:44 PM
I'm not sure how the fuck you came to that conclusion. We can't realistically achieve deficit reduction without raising taxes. Nearly every Republican has signed an oath not to raise taxes. This makes Republicans impediments to deficit reduction. And yes, before you start, Democrats have agreed to cuts. They have no ideological straight jacket that says "No, we can't cut government spending".
And now they're asking for more spendng.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 17, 2011, 09:49:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2011, 08:49:44 PM
I'm not sure how the fuck you came to that conclusion. We can't realistically achieve deficit reduction without raising taxes. Nearly every Republican has signed an oath not to raise taxes. This makes Republicans impediments to deficit reduction. And yes, before you start, Democrats have agreed to cuts. They have no ideological straight jacket that says "No, we can't cut government spending".
And now they're asking for more spendng.
Gotta spend some to make some. Actually, you have no idea what the bill will entail.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 17, 2011, 12:50:55 PM
They showed up before Obama got elected.
They showed up in February of 2008. A few days after Obama got elected.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2011, 09:52:28 PM
Gotta spend some to make some. Actually, you have no idea what the bill will entail.
When you've seen 60 or so jobs bills come and go that involve spending and none that are built solely on good intentions and positive attitude, you can make a reasonable prediction about the 61st.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 17, 2011, 09:55:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2011, 09:52:28 PM
Gotta spend some to make some. Actually, you have no idea what the bill will entail.
When you've seen 60 or so jobs bills come and go that involve spending and none that are built solely on good intentions and positive attitude, you can make a reasonable prediction about the 61st.
You don't know if it will actually increase spending. It could just shift money around. I suppose it could also include tax cuts, but that'd be okay.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2011, 09:58:03 PM
You don't know if it will actually increase spending. It could just shift money around. I suppose it could also include tax cuts, but that'd be okay.
Sure thing Raz. Whatever you say.
Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2011, 12:53:34 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 17, 2011, 12:50:55 PM
They showed up before Obama got elected.
:yeahright: If they did it was just before.
Yeah, it was just before, because that's when the meltdown happened.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2011, 09:54:01 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 17, 2011, 12:50:55 PM
They showed up before Obama got elected.
They showed up in February of 2008. A few days after Obama got elected.
:lol:
He was elected in November 2008 though.
Anyway, Obama's not to blame for them. It was a reaction to TARP, and that was Bush's thing.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 17, 2011, 11:05:47 PM
He was elected in November 2008 though.
Anyway, Obama's not to blame for them. It was a reaction to TARP, and that was Bush's thing.
If we include protests about TARP then I suppose that means Michael Moore is a Tea Party member. The TARP protests had ended by the time Obama was in office the Tea Party began shortly after. The term Tea Party comes from something some commetator said about an Obama proposal,
not TARP.
QuoteBy most accounts, the Paul Revere figure of this Second American Revolution is an excitable cable-news reporter named Rick Santelli, a former futures trader and Drexel Burnham Lambert vice-president who stood on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange last February and sounded the alarm on CNBC about the new Administration's planned assistance for homeowners facing foreclosure. He proposed a nationwide referendum, via the Internet, on the matter of subsidizing "the losers' mortgages," winning both the attention and the vocal support of the working traders in his midst. "President Obama, are you listening?" he shouted, and then said that he'd been thinking of organizing a Chicago Tea Party in July, urging "all you capitalists" to come join him on Lake Michigan, where "we're going to be dumping in some derivative securities." It was a delicate pose—financial professionals more or less laughing at debtors while disavowing the lending techniques that had occasioned the crisis—but within a matter of hours a Web site, OfficialChicagoTeaParty.com, had gone live, and by the end of the following week dozens of small protests were occurring simultaneously around the country, invoking the legacy of early New England colonists in their revolt against King George.
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/02/01/100201fa_fact_mcgrath#ixzz1VLp3QSTJ
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/02/01/100201fa_fact_mcgrath?currentPage=all
Santelli was late to the party, but threw gas on the fire.
Not Obama's fault.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 18, 2011, 01:32:38 AM
Santelli was late to the party, but threw gas on the fire.
Not Obama's fault.
You are basing this on what exactly?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2011, 11:22:25 PM
If we include protests about TARP then I suppose that means Michael Moore is a Tea Party member.
He might have been, if it wasn't for all those conservatives showing up at the movement. Your attempt to argue based on Michael Moore has failed.
Quote from: derspiess on August 17, 2011, 12:27:33 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2011, 11:38:35 AM
Eh even if he did offer specifics who cares? It is not like when he does it really means anything.
I think it would mean a lot. Particularly since he's already talking about how he'd use it against the GOP if they were against it.
I really hope it includes a huge extension on unemployment benefits, since the administration seems to think that's a good way to get people back to work.
So, what do you think should happen to people on unemployment benefits?
I actually think the GOP will pursue austerity while in power. We aren't seeing Republican legislatures and governors pursuing stimulus programs now, right? They are probably an indication of how serious the GOP is about austerity at the expense of job creation.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 18, 2011, 08:15:20 AM
So, what do you think should happen to people on unemployment benefits?
Depends on how long they've been on them. I'm not opposed to the general idea of unemployment insurance, but I think extending them to 99 weeks was a bit excessive.
QuoteI actually think the GOP will pursue austerity while in power.
Raz would like a word with you.
QuoteWe aren't seeing Republican legislatures and governors pursuing stimulus programs now, right? They are probably an indication of how serious the GOP is about austerity at the expense of job creation.
I disagree with your underlying notion there, which seems to be that austerity <-----> job growth is a zero sum game, but if decreased spending comes at the cost of some unsustainable potential "make-work" jobs, then so be it.
Alot of the States have to do austerity anyway regardless of what ideology they follow. They cannot just print more money so if they do not have the money they have to either make cuts or start borrowing and most of them are not comfortable enough with their future prospects to take such a risk...oh and alot of them have balanced budget provisions in their constitutions.
So I do not think that necessarily means that will be what happens on a federal level once the Republicans get their next shot.
Quote from: Neil on August 18, 2011, 07:52:20 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2011, 11:22:25 PM
If we include protests about TARP then I suppose that means Michael Moore is a Tea Party member.
Michael Moore
What happened to Boss Hogg
Quote from: derspiess on August 18, 2011, 09:35:12 AM
I disagree with your underlying notion there, which seems to be that austerity <-----> job growth is a zero sum game, but if decreased spending comes at the cost of some unsustainable potential "make-work" jobs, then so be it.
Well, we have seen some prominent nations pursuing austerity the past few years. How's that working out?
Quote from: Faeelin on August 18, 2011, 10:13:34 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 18, 2011, 09:35:12 AM
I disagree with your underlying notion there, which seems to be that austerity <-----> job growth is a zero sum game, but if decreased spending comes at the cost of some unsustainable potential "make-work" jobs, then so be it.
Well, we have seen some prominent nations pursuing austerity the past few years. How's that working out?
Fiscal austerity very much tends to be a "short term pain for long term gain" kind of thing.
Better question is to ask how countries pursuing austerity are doing in ten years.
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 08:32:01 PM
really, what was the plan for post-war Iraq, I mean, to stabilize the country once Saddam was toppled? What has been done within the 1st year post-Saddam?
The plan was, as Cheney announced, to have the Iraqis greet US troops with flowers, so no other plans were needed, what with Cheney being infallible and all.
Quote from: Barrister on August 18, 2011, 10:16:04 AM
Better question is to ask how countries pursuing austerity are doing in ten years.
Ten years after Clinton, not so well.
Quote from: grumbler on August 18, 2011, 11:08:57 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 18, 2011, 10:16:04 AM
Better question is to ask how countries pursuing austerity are doing in ten years.
Ten years after Clinton, not so well.
I dunno - it seems to me Clinton got serious about the deficit after 1994, when Newt took the House.
1994-2004 were some pretty good years.
Quote from: Barrister on August 18, 2011, 11:12:57 AM
1994-2004 were some pretty good years.
2004 had the highest unemployment between 1996 and 2009. Government debt was rising, the trade balance was the second-worst in modern history (followed the next year by the worst), tax revenues (%GDP) were worse than before 1980, and the worst until the '09 crash.
Not so good ten years out.
This isn't to say it wouldn't have been worse without the discipline of the Clinton years, of course.
Quote from: Neil on August 18, 2011, 07:52:20 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2011, 11:22:25 PM
If we include protests about TARP then I suppose that means Michael Moore is a Tea Party member.
He might have been, if it wasn't for all those conservatives showing up at the movement. Your attempt to argue based on Michael Moore has failed.
And you know, Leftists protesting corporate greed.
Quote from: derspiess on August 18, 2011, 09:35:12 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on August 18, 2011, 08:15:20 AM
So, what do you think should happen to people on unemployment benefits?
Depends on how long they've been on them. I'm not opposed to the general idea of unemployment insurance, but I think extending them to 99 weeks was a bit excessive.
Well, the unemployment rate now is 9.2% right? So what's your plan for people who can't get a job?
QuoteI disagree with your underlying notion there, which seems to be that austerity <-----> job growth is a zero sum game, but if decreased spending comes at the cost of some unsustainable potential "make-work" jobs, then so be it.
I agree that in the long term austerity can improve the economy, but I don't see how it can boost the economy in the short term.
Quote from: 11B4V on August 18, 2011, 09:38:46 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 18, 2011, 07:52:20 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2011, 11:22:25 PM
If we include protests about TARP then I suppose that means Michael Moore is a Tea Party member.
Michael Moore
What happened to Boss Hogg
Barbour is still Scippy's gov, as far as I know.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 18, 2011, 10:13:34 AM
Well, we have seen some prominent nations pursuing austerity the past few years. How's that working out?
For some it has achieved the intended purpose--maintaining the ability to borrow at reasonable terms.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 18, 2011, 02:47:50 PM
Well, the unemployment rate now is 9.2% right? So what's your plan for people who can't get a job?
Well, some of those folks are going to have make-do with taking a job that may pay less than their previous job. I know it sucks to have to do that, but we cannot afford to extend unemployment benefits indefinitely. Otherwise we'll end up with a nation of Cousin Eddies who are unemployed for 7 years because they're "holding out for a management position" :P
As far as a plan to fight fight unemployment, all I can think of is to maybe try to remove some barriers (certain labor laws, etc.) that may discourage employers. And maybe cut down on the talk about raising taxes on "the rich"-- many small business owners are "the rich" and they're less likely to hire if they think their taxes might increase in the near future.
Quote
I agree that in the long term austerity can improve the economy, but I don't see how it can boost the economy in the short term.
Businesses think long-term. If they see congress taking the debt/deficit problems seriously (maybe even if that includes some slight tax increases), I think they'll have more confidence in the future of the economy & resume hiring.
But beyond that, we simply can't afford any more Keynesian attempts to jump-start the economy through wasteful spending. And FWIW, I don't think many (if any) of the recently-proposed "cuts" qualify as austerity.
Quote from: derspiess on August 18, 2011, 04:48:18 PM
Businesses think long-term. If they see congress taking the debt/deficit problems seriously (maybe even if that includes some slight tax increases), I think they'll have more confidence in the future of the economy & resume hiring.
:lol: Of course they do.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 18, 2011, 03:53:41 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on August 18, 2011, 10:13:34 AM
Well, we have seen some prominent nations pursuing austerity the past few years. How's that working out?
For some it has achieved the intended purpose--maintaining the ability to borrow at reasonable terms.
But the US can borrow at reasonable terms now, despite the failure to get cuts that ders thinks qualify as austerity.
And while I might buy that business think long-term and hire based on it seriously, it doesn't seem like that's working out anywhere that's pursuing austerity at the moment...
Quote from: Faeelin on August 19, 2011, 08:38:59 AM
And while I might buy that business think long-term and hire based on it seriously, it doesn't seem like that's working out anywhere that's pursuing austerity at the moment...
What examples are you thinking of, and do you think they are relevant to the US economy?
Quote from: derspiess on August 19, 2011, 09:36:45 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on August 19, 2011, 08:38:59 AM
And while I might buy that business think long-term and hire based on it seriously, it doesn't seem like that's working out anywhere that's pursuing austerity at the moment...
What examples are you thinking of, and do you think they are relevant to the US economy?
The UK and Ireland will do for examples where governments are pursuing austerity. Why are they not relevant to the US economy? If you think austerity and getting the fiscal house in order will encourage business to invest, wh y would that law only apply in America?
Quote from: Faeelin on August 19, 2011, 08:38:59 AM
But the US can borrow at reasonable terms now, despite the failure to get cuts that ders thinks qualify as austerity.
Just as Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland could a few years ago. The yield/risk curve for sovereigns doesn't slope gradually, it's flat until it reaches a tipping point where it gets very steep. The last couple years we've been packing on debt/GDP at c. 10%/year. Maybe the debt limit deal dropped that to around 7 or 8 a year. But still in 6 years or so we'll be at Italian levels of indebtedness. Any further stimulus spending will just accelerate this process.
The largest bond fund manager in the world has liquidated entirely their holding of Treasuries and taken a short position. Their stated reason was that the yield obtaining doesn't justify the risk.
Even with the ending of QE2 there are factors which artificially pump up the demand for Treasuries: they are the only collateral accepted for loans from the Federal Reserve's discount window (if you want to take advantage of some of those famous zero percent loans you have to have Treasuries to qualify); as part of the post subprime meltdown reforms capital requirements have been raised, and holdings of Treasuries get counted at full value in assessing capital.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 19, 2011, 09:54:21 AM
The UK and Ireland will do for examples where governments are pursuing austerity. Why are they not relevant to the US economy? If you think austerity and getting the fiscal house in order will encourage business to invest, wh y would that law only apply in America?
I'll allow the UK. But not the Irish :angry:
Btw what's the unemployment rate in the UK?
7.7%
Quote from: derspiess on August 18, 2011, 04:48:18 PM
Businesses think long-term.
Not really. That's part of the problem.
Quote from: derspiess on August 18, 2011, 04:48:18 PM
Businesses think long-term. If they see congress taking the debt/deficit problems seriously (maybe even if that includes some slight tax increases), I think they'll have more confidence in the future of the economy & resume hiring.
I very much doubt most businesses think anything like that at all.
They don't, but that's a very useful narrative if you're a Republican.
Persons are smart. Businesses are stupid.
Most persons who run businesses focus on the immediate drivers of their revenue and profitability and focus on the short-term. The latter not only because of the natural tendency to focus on the most immediate concern, but also because most are bright enough to understand that speculating about how complex issues like fiscal policy will work out long-term is just throwing darts blindfolded. For example a company in the jewelry business will watch the financial news carefully to get an idea how the prices of gold or silver are likely to move over the next 6 months to a year, and help forecast sales for the next 12 months. But they aren't likely to think about what the long bond yield may be like 10 years from now. People running mid-size manufacturing, retail, wholesale, services, etc. business are not sitting around reviewing 20 year CBO budgetary forecasts and thinking - "huh - looks like we can get debt/GDP down to 50% by 2025 - I am going to expand my operations".
I thought Spicy's laugher about "some of those folks are going to have make-do with taking a job that may pay less than their previous job" was a lot funnier than his rip-tickler about how he thinks businesspeople think. I think he knows less about how unemployment works than he does about how to size a bicycle properly for a fish.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 20, 2011, 12:20:41 PM
Most persons who run businesses focus on the immediate drivers of their revenue and profitability and focus on the short-term. The latter not only because of the natural tendency to focus on the most immediate concern, but also because most are bright enough to understand that speculating about how complex issues like fiscal policy will work out long-term is just throwing darts blindfolded. For example a company in the jewelry business will watch the financial news carefully to get an idea how the prices of gold or silver are likely to move over the next 6 months to a year, and help forecast sales for the next 12 months. But they aren't likely to think about what the long bond yield may be like 10 years from now. People running mid-size manufacturing, retail, wholesale, services, etc. business are not sitting around reviewing 20 year CBO budgetary forecasts and thinking - "huh - looks like we can get debt/GDP down to 50% by 2025 - I am going to expand my operations".
I think you're right, but I also think that an element of hysteria feeds into it. If everyone on the news is saying 'DOOM! Businessageddon is coming!', then they might be less likely to expand.
Maybe Spicy can hire me for less than my previous job. I won't stick around at that pay rate, but if he pays my relocation expenses, I'll take it. :)
Quote from: grumbler on August 20, 2011, 12:34:49 PM
I thought Spicy's laugher about "some of those folks are going to have make-do with taking a job that may pay less than their previous job" was a lot funnier
What you mean a 50 year old unemployed lathe operator in Michigan can't just instantly take a job as a website designer in Seattle, or an elder-care nurse in Phoenix?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 20, 2011, 02:53:23 PMWhat you mean a 50 year old unemployed lathe operator in Michigan can't just instantly take a job as a website designer in Seattle, or an elder-care nurse in Phoenix?
He can take an unskilled job though, which I think is better than being permanently unemployed.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on August 20, 2011, 03:05:41 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 20, 2011, 02:53:23 PMWhat you mean a 50 year old unemployed lathe operator in Michigan can't just instantly take a job as a website designer in Seattle, or an elder-care nurse in Phoenix?
He can take an unskilled job though, which I think is better than being permanently unemployed.
Indeed, he has to... if the unskilled job is available.
That's the point.
A lot of places will pass over overqualified applicants, too.
<---CASE IN POINT.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2011, 06:43:26 PM
That's the point.
A lot of places will pass over overqualified applicants, too.
<---CASE IN POINT.
:yes:
Why hire someone with a college degree who: a. will leave as soon as he gets a better job offer; and b. will want more pay/benefits over time, when you can hire a high school dropout/teenage to do the same work for longer and less.
Hey Ide, btw, you should teach abroad in Korea or China. All the cool kids are doing it. :cool:
I think he already taught abroad in Korea
Quote from: Maximus on August 20, 2011, 06:50:15 PM
I think he already taught abroad in Korea
:lol: Touche
Quote from: Maximus on August 20, 2011, 06:50:15 PM
I think he already taught abroad in Korea
[Rimshot.]
I think the JET programs and stuff like it would bounce me because of my criminal record.
They might also bounce me if my purpose statement was honest. To cross-thread a little, "I'm broke and I like Asian women, so this is the solution that a trip to Thailand would not be."
How about the Peace Corps?
Reese's Corps?
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2011, 06:53:59 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 20, 2011, 06:50:15 PM
I think he already taught abroad in Korea
[Rimshot.]
I think the JET programs and stuff like it would bounce me because of my criminal record.
They might also bounce me if my purpose statement was honest. To cross-thread a little, "I'm broke and I like Asian women, so this is the solution that a trip to Thailand would not be."
China, Vietnam, Thailand, and some Korean language schools aren't that picky.
And that statement would describe pretty much everyone that teaches abroad :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2011, 07:01:05 PM
How about the Peace Corps?
Well, A:
Quote from: Peace CorpsPlan ahead and apply nine months to a year in advance of your target departure date.
By which point I'm living under a bridge with a surplus army jacket full of cats.
And B, I didn't put up with three years of law school so I could get beheaded by some savage who doesn't like the way I talk about the Koran and/or the Bible and/or his shitty country, and not even get paid for it.
I'm strongly considering enlisting in the USAF, however, as that may be marginally preferable to moving back in with my parents or with my sister.
But who knows? Maybe that hearings officer job in Georgia will pan out. There's a D.C. arraignment clerk thing I'm filing Monday (I need to call and ask whether they need official transcripts or if unofficial ones are fine). Presumably there is some kind of Goddamn job for a J.D. in this awful, Randian country.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on August 20, 2011, 07:20:24 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2011, 06:53:59 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 20, 2011, 06:50:15 PM
I think he already taught abroad in Korea
[Rimshot.]
I think the JET programs and stuff like it would bounce me because of my criminal record.
They might also bounce me if my purpose statement was honest. To cross-thread a little, "I'm broke and I like Asian women, so this is the solution that a trip to Thailand would not be."
China, Vietnam, Thailand, and some Korean language schools aren't that picky.
And that statement would describe pretty much everyone that teaches abroad :lol:
Oh, I'm sure the PRC would
love me.
Maybe I'll look into the Thai or Viet stuff.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2011, 07:28:22 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on August 20, 2011, 07:20:24 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2011, 06:53:59 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 20, 2011, 06:50:15 PM
I think he already taught abroad in Korea
[Rimshot.]
I think the JET programs and stuff like it would bounce me because of my criminal record.
They might also bounce me if my purpose statement was honest. To cross-thread a little, "I'm broke and I like Asian women, so this is the solution that a trip to Thailand would not be."
China, Vietnam, Thailand, and some Korean language schools aren't that picky.
And that statement would describe pretty much everyone that teaches abroad :lol:
Oh, I'm sure the PRC would love me.
Maybe I'll look into the Thai or Viet stuff.
One of my friends from Korea spent time in Thailand and is thinking of going back there. I also have a friend in Vietnam and I traveled through there, so if you have any questions, just ask. :)
Thanks, dude. :)
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on August 20, 2011, 10:01:56 PM
I also have a friend in Vietnam and I traveled through there, so if you have any questions, just ask. :)
Things
may have changed a bit since '69.
Ide are you really finishing law school already?
Anyway, if you are having trouble finding legal work, I can't imagine teaching english in asia will help.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 21, 2011, 11:41:40 AM
Ide are you really finishing law school already?
Anyway, if you are having trouble finding legal work, I can't imagine teaching english in asia will help.
I finished in May.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 21, 2011, 12:38:34 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 21, 2011, 11:41:40 AM
Ide are you really finishing law school already?
Anyway, if you are having trouble finding legal work, I can't imagine teaching english in asia will help.
I finished in May.
Congrats, I remember encouraging you to go to law school, hopefully you aren't mad at me now. :blush:
Are you studying for the bar? I'm taking it that the market for recent law school grads is tough atm.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 21, 2011, 11:41:40 AM
Ide are you really finishing law school already?
Anyway, if you are having trouble finding legal work, I can't imagine teaching english in asia will help.
With the way the job market is, especially for law, I imagine it's better than nothing.
TEFL isn't my preferred career field either, but after spending the last 6 months applying and not getting anything, I figure I might as well go back overseas for a year and hope companies start hiring after that.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 21, 2011, 04:50:47 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 21, 2011, 12:38:34 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 21, 2011, 11:41:40 AM
Ide are you really finishing law school already?
Anyway, if you are having trouble finding legal work, I can't imagine teaching english in asia will help.
I finished in May.
Congrats, I remember encouraging you to go to law school, hopefully you aren't mad at me now. :blush:
Are you studying for the bar? I'm taking it that the market for recent law school grads is tough atm.
I'm not. Although I may take the winter bar in whatever state I wind up moving to. I have no desire to stay here in SC any longer.
Quote from: HMBobWith the way the job market is, especially for law, I imagine it's better than nothing.
I was turfed from a crap job the other day, affirmatively because of my law degree. Well, that and possibly my obviously depressed reaction to how poorly they were willing to pay me--less than I made cleaning tables at a restaurant five years ago--but, you know, the two are related.
HMB, what is your degree in? Not law I trust?
Ide, good call on leaving South Carolina. And good luck.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 21, 2011, 07:40:06 PM
HMB, what is your degree in? Not law I trust?
Ide, good call on leaving South Carolina. And good luck.
Nope, not law. I wasn't crazy enough to go that far into debt for my degree. :P