He does.
It wouldn't.
It wouldn't.
US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
- Status
It would be funny for about 4 seconds.
The only thing funny about Romney winning would be watching people's reaction to him winning, especially in this thread. But then once the reality set in that Romney was going to be President it would just be sad.
The only chance he has is, as someone posted a few pages back, if Sandy depresses turnout in Philly.
Fair enough, we'll never know how Clinton would have handled things.
On the stimulus, I think he didn't fight hard enough.
Look, he was elected on a platform of "Change", he had a super majority, he tried to play too nice with the Republicans and completely lost momentum for two years.
If this was the UK, the government would get absolutely slammed for rising unemployment.
I guess only in the US would they consider the absolute figure of jobs created more important than the proportion of people unemployed.
The Recovery Act was signed in Feb 2009, Al Franken didn't take his seat till July 2009. So, even that tenuous super-majority didn't actually exist at the time.
That change was supposed to be in part, bipartisanship. You can either hang him for being naive when he promised change (and you'd have had to be naive to buy that notion at the time) or you can hang him for actually attempting it. You can't hang him for both.
I agree that he should have wised up to the Repub strategy much earlier. Now that he has, I'm hopeful that he'll negotiate much more strongly when the sequestration comes up, and fingers crossed, gets a second stimulus, and a Jobs Act passed.
If this was the UK, the government would get absolutely slammed for rising unemployment.
I guess only in the US would they consider the absolute figure of jobs created more important than the proportion of people unemployed.
People haven't lost jobs though, more people have just starting looking for them. The BLS even said "the unemployment rate is essentially unchanged".
Not sure how this so called second stimulus is supposed to happen when deficit reduction is also a priority!
I wouldn't get too caught up in what campaign slogans mean, they usually actually mean very little other than being catchy. Change, well after 8 years of Bush, it was a good word to use wasn't it. Probably would have been used by whoever the Dems ran.
But that is me just being cynical.
But that is me just being cynical.
Loving the spinUnemployment rate increased, this is in the figures. It's not a huge increase, but an increase nonetheless.
The point is that the economy does not have enough vacancies for people entering the labour market, and in the last month, it created less than the increase in people looking for work.
It isn't actually. Not at this moment in time.
That's the scare-mongering created by the right-wing and bought hook, line and sinker by the centrist (read: brainless) media.
No, just being a realist.
The Democratic "super-majority" lasted for less than 50 days. Franken's seating was stalled until July 7, 2009 by lawsuits from his opponent. Kennedy died on August 25, 2009. And in any case, even if that period were longer, the Democrats never really had a super-majority with which to govern. Nelson and Landrieu may have been "Democrats", (Lieberman wasn't even that anymore,) but they had no interest in a liberal agenda. Spector was a lifelong Republican who just switched sides because he was first against the wall in the teabaggers' GOP ascendancy.
Unemployment rate increased, this is in the figures. It's not a huge increase, but an increase nonetheless.
The point is that the economy does not have enough vacancies for people entering the labour market, and in the last month, it created less than the increase in people looking for work.
Well yeah the right will no doubt agree with you, everyone else seems pretty happy with the numbers though. It'll have no bearing on the election.
Nonsense. Obama is on the record many many times saying that deficit reduction will happen. It's even on his website. Rising taxes, and lower spending will happen. This is not a stimulus. Obama has not campaigned for a stimulus. There will be no fiscal stimulus.
But... but... he had a super-majority.
I like how a few months ago, when the unemployment rate went down but workers left the work force, mjs was around to explain that this was bad, and too few jobs were added, but now, when more jobs are being added, but the unemployment rate ticks up on account of workers returning to the work force, Jaz is here to explain why this is bad because the unemployment rate is higher.
How many measures of any deficit reduction do you suppose kick in right away? It is a 10 year plan.
The stimulus isn't what Obama has campaigned on, but it is what needs to be done. There's a difference.
mjs had a good point about 'inactive' people - he was saying the figures were fixed. I don't agree with that, but in some part inactivity does increase. I don't have a problem with unemployment falling. But unemployment did not fall this time, and is high at 7.9%
Some of the old stimulus expires fairly soon. I can only see this maintained (after protracted debate and discussion, but this won't really increased much on net spend so the status quo remains) or left to expire (deficit reduction).The point is, there are no real proposals for increased stimulus. The readjustment must be made, the budget deficit is very bad at the moment.
Stagnant unemployment rate.
This basically means job growth figures are misleading. I cannot believe that any liberal, or left-leaning person can sensibly think that job creation is a priority over lower unemployment. Are you seriously suggesting that you would prioritize volume of jobs over the proportion of people who have no job at all? I thought you care about inequality. With unemployment, you can be fairly confident that those unemployed are those with 0 jobs looking for work. These are the people with little income and desperate, and need a job. With job numbers, you don't consider population and labour market growth. You don't consider the number of people wanting or needing a job. And more importantly, you are considering people with 2nd or 3rd jobs, and ignoring the people with no jobs at all. A lower unemployment rate is likely to result in a less unequal society. Not a higher job creation rate.
http://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/...l=en&dl=en&ind=false&q=unemployment+graph+usa
If the unemployment rate wasn't also on a downward trend, you might have a point there.
The point is, there are no real proposals for increased stimulus. The readjustment must be made, the budget deficit is very bad at the moment.
To be fair, Obama hasn't set out an actual second-term agenda (something the right have been hammering away on). When the sequestration comes up for implementation is when all this can be negotiated. Is why I used the phrase, 'fingers crossed' - I thought that was sufficient to distinguish it from a prediction.
The budget deficit is not affecting the economy - interest rates on govt. bonds are, inflation adjusted, below zero. Inflation is also not an issue. Hence, the phrase 'right-wing scare-mongering.' Jobs, and stimulating demand, on the other hand, are the main issues.
Inflation would actually be one of the most effective ways of reducing the debt. It's funny that debt hawks never mention this... if you were a cynical sort, you'd almost think these people had massive savings and they didn't want to see a few percent eroded away.
I'm not sure how it can be "right wing scare mongering" especially when European countries are in the sovereign debt crisis, right now. People said it was impossible and "right wing scare mongering" 5 years ago here. Clearly it wasn't. If the US continues to borrow heavily, you will eventually get to a point where it too will find itself in the same situation. Then a an ever sharper deficit reduction plan will be needed. Why not simply accept that excessive borrowing is a bad thing now?
Inflation's a pain, but at moderate levels it's not the Antichrist. It needs to be looked at rationally in terms of cost-benefit analysis. If the debt is as cataclysmic as the hawks maintain, they ought to be open to the idea of tolerating somewhat higher levels of inflation for a bit. Not right now, because demand's still too low and it would affect spending. But once recovery is established, central banks' policy of treating inflation-squashing as the basic reason for their existence ought to be re-assessed.
Of course, it won't be, because middle- and upper-class savers, especially the elderly, have the political clout.
Key word. Hence, my use of the phrase, 'not at the moment.'
Excessive borrowing is not a bad thing now if it leads to demand being stimulated, and economic growth. Which leads to higher revenues. (Which itself addresses the deficit to a degree.)
The ideal time for debt reduction is when you have a surplus. But since the right-wing agenda isn't actually that ('Reagan proved that deficits don't matter') but tax cuts for the wealthy, this is in fact, scare-mongering. The sensible view would be to stabilise the economy and then address deficit reduction.
Re Europe, I hope someone else will be patient enough with you to pull up the charts depicting the pre-crisis budget surplus of Spain etc. That someone will be not me.
Also, effective in reducing household debt.
Err what?
I said deficit reduction, not debt reduction. You cannot reduce debt while you have a budget deficit which is growing faster than inflation. I can totally assure you that the US deficit is so bad, inflation will not be sufficient to reduce it. The fact is that the US government has been spending more than revenues since Clinton.
Spain had a massive property boom and collapse well before the loss in confidence in its governments bond. There's not magical number for sovereign debt, it's about confidence. That said, I don't expect the US to have these problem for at least a decade.
Good article on something to watch out for on election night: Obama might not lead the popular vote until a couple of weeks after the election - http://www.tnr.com/blog/electionate/109533/the-popular-vote-nightmare
You really are a prize WUM aren't you? The fact that I spoke about debt reduction and deficit reduction in two separate sentences should be enough to make a distinction. The surplus existed in 2001, hence my quoting Dick Cheney there...
When you say 'since Clinton' I hope you mean 'since Clinton left office' and not 'since Clinton took office'. If you bring up the nonsense about the 'Social Security trust fund' all you deserve are a bunch of these
And who suggested that inflation will address ALL the debt reduction? Plechazunga certainly didn't. It's simply another tool in the belt.
EDIT: The 'confidence fairy' !
In your favour, at least, you finally accepted : That said, I don't expect the US to have these problem for at least a decade.
Now we can all breathe easy.
in a nutshell this what most economists believe.
History has taught us that we should not be concerned about debt reduction in a recession.
True; in a massively shrinking economy, inflation is the least concerning issue
Whoa
First time I've seen someone from the GOP say that.
First time I've seen someone from the GOP say that.
rino! Rino!
National polls and state polls: same methods, different predictive accuracy
http://election.princeton.edu/believe-national-or-state-polls-2nov2012.php
Sam Wang's
Edit: he might be a bit biased towards Obama - I'd definitely add Colorado to the tossups - , but he makes a solid point in general. State polls errors are unlikely to be present equally across all states.
http://election.princeton.edu/believe-national-or-state-polls-2nov2012.php
Sam Wang's
Edit: he might be a bit biased towards Obama - I'd definitely add Colorado to the tossups - , but he makes a solid point in general. State polls errors are unlikely to be present equally across all states.
- Status