No. of Recommendations: 23
http://doonesbury.slate.com/strip/archive/2012/5/18

And here's how Andrew Tobias explains it:

Because of high taxes and powerful labor unions, America had no job growth from 1945 through 1992. Employment barely budged, from 53 million to an only slightly higher 119 million. And then it got even worse -- Clinton came in, with his awful tax hikes. In those disastrous years -- made worse by all the insane Democratic regulation that kills jobs -- we added barely 23 million more jobs. Barely 23 million!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-tobias/doonesbury-on-jo...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
<<And then it got even worse -- Clinton came in, with his awful tax hikes. In those disastrous years -- made worse by all the insane Democratic regulation that kills jobs -- we added barely 23 million more jobs. Barely 23 million!>>


Too bad for your argument that Obama is running for reelection. Job growth during his administration has been rather slow, don't you think?



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
Job and stock market growth tend to be way better under Democrats than Republicans--why take a chance? Especially on someone who likes people to get fired, likes to bankrupt companies to add to his wealth, and likes to curtail the freedom of individuals unlike himself.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 33
Too bad for your argument that Obama is running for reelection. Job growth during his administration has been rather slow, don't you think?

Compared to W? https://www.google.com/search?q=job+growth+bush+obama&hl...

But apparently you missed the point. This isn't about Obama. It is about the wildly insane notion teabaggers have been selling that job growth and economic recovery require lowering taxes on the ultra-wealthy. All existing empirical data indicate this is complete BS. The facts are clear to anyone with enough imagination to get up off their angry old @ss and turn off FuxNews.

As for Obama's record on job growth, he has been unable to get the Republican Congress to reverse the insane Bush tax give-aways to the ultra-wealthy. You can't deny that he has tried. As long as naive teabaggers keep strangling economic growth through failed tax theories, we will continue to see sluggish growth at best.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<As for Obama's record on job growth, he has been unable to get the Republican Congress to reverse the insane Bush tax give-aways to the ultra-wealthy. You can't deny that he has tried. As long as naive teabaggers keep strangling economic growth through failed tax theories, we will continue to see sluggish growth at best. >>



Obama has to run on his record. The leading reason why he is likely to lose the election is poor job growth and high unemployment.


Good luck on trying to sell your argument.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 34
Obama has to run on his record. The leading reason why he is likely to lose the election is poor job growth and high unemployment.

I think the leading reason would be that many voters have never seen or are incapable of understanding a simple chart like this one:

http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&sa=X&rlz=1C1GGGE_...

Jack
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
I think the leading reason would be that many voters have never seen or are incapable of understanding a simple chart like this one:
http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&sa=X&rlz=1C1GGGE_......
Jack

-----

I think it's more than just 'never having seen' or 'not understanding'. It appears to me to be a more pathological 'head-in-the-sand' need to deny Obama any credit at all.
I showed that very chart to one of my brothers, a staunchly anti-Obama anti-government unemployed teabagger (who collected unemployment and now food stamps BTW) via FB, and his response was to 'unfriend' me!



ten
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
I think it's more than just 'never having seen' or 'not understanding'. It appears to me to be a more pathological 'head-in-the-sand' need to deny Obama any credit at all.
I showed that very chart to one of my brothers, a staunchly anti-Obama anti-government unemployed teabagger (who collected unemployment and now food stamps BTW) via FB, and his response was to 'unfriend' me!


Without blaming Obama for his troubles, your poor brother might have to (a) look inward and actually see himself and his place in this world, (b) look at the Republican Congress and see what they've done to him, (c) look at what the greediest of the 0.01% is doing to the rest of us with Fox, Rush et al as their visible cheerleaders (and the Kochs et al as puppet masters). Too painful--and he's angry at anyone who does go there.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<I think the leading reason would be that many voters have never seen or are incapable of understanding a simple chart like this one:

http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&sa=X&rlz=1C1GGGE_......

Jack >>



They probably understand a biased presentation of the facts better than you wish they did.

It seems unlikely that people are going to respond to your theory that "Happy Times Are Here Again." Especially if the Euro economy goes down the toilet this summer.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Without blaming Obama for his troubles, your poor brother might have to (a) look inward and actually see himself and his place in this world, (b) look at the Republican Congress and see what they've done to him, (c) look at what the greediest of the 0.01% is doing to the rest of us with Fox, Rush et al as their visible cheerleaders (and the Kochs et al as puppet masters). Too painful--and he's angry at anyone who does go there.

Good luck with that. Their minds don't work that like. Here's famous actor and Teabagger Craig T. Nelson: "I've been on food stamps and welfare, did anyone help me out? No."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRSnbf7zrh0&feature=fvwre...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
Here's famous actor and Teabagger Craig T. Nelson: "I've been on food stamps and welfare, did anyone help me out? No."
============
Statements like that defy logic. Do they later realize how stupid it sounds or are they that disconnected from reality?

I have never been on food stamps or welfare or any government assistance. Yet I vote for Democrats because their principles align with mine for the most part. I am still shocked and amazed that Romney wants to give MORE tax cuts to the rich and roll back regulation which obviously did not work during Bush 43 or even the extension during Obama.

Despite Romney's disconnect from everyday people (even regular rich people as opposed to uber wealthy), his obvious flip flopping and cow-towing to extreme right, his inability to stand for anything of substance, it is still his policies and supposed agenda that is anathema to me.



Why do we have a debt-ceiling crisis? The answer is clear: George W. Bush probably was the most fiscally irresponsible president in American history.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
As long as naive teabaggers keep strangling economic growth through failed tax theories, we will continue to see sluggish growth at best

Sluggish growth! From your lips to God's ear. We're looking right down the barrel of a worldwide recessionary depression.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Obama has to run on his record.

Okay, but his record on job growth is pretty good, considering. While he's been in office the U.S. has recovered all of the private sector jobs it lost during the crash and recession. Public sector jobs are still down, but that's exactly what conservatives and Republicans want: smaller government, fewer government employees.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<Obama has to run on his record.

Okay, but his record on job growth is pretty good, considering. >>



Considering unemployment is 8% plus?

You guys want to talk about everything except that bottom line.





Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
SeattlePioneer analyzes:Considering unemployment is 8% plus?

You guys want to talk about everything except that bottom line.


Private sector jobs have been growing, public sector jobs have been shrinking. The Tea Party pillories President Obama for this, all the while supporting Romney's "Grow Private Sector Jobs; Shrink Public Sector Jobs" ticket.

MF's own Morgan Housel wrote about this strange myopia two weeks ago:

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/05/09/what-if-the...

Since 2009, the private economy has created 1.3 million jobs, and governments have shed 1.3 million jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' household survey. Justin Lahart of The Wall Street Journal used that data yesterday to ask: What would the unemployment rate be today if governments hadn't been slashing jobs over the last 3.5 years?

His rough conclusion (emphasis mine): "If there were as many people working in government as there were in December 2008, the unemployment rate in April would have been 7.1%, not 8.1%."


Meanwhile...

So what if, rather than holding government employment steady at December 2008 levels as Lahart does, you assume that it grew at the same rate from 2009-2012 as it did from 2005-2008? You get this: A current unemployment rate of... drumroll... 6.5%.

But yeah, this high unemployment is all Obama's fault.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<SeattlePioneer analyzes:Considering unemployment is 8% plus?

You guys want to talk about everything except that bottom line.


Private sector jobs have been growing, public sector jobs have been shrinking. >>



Be sure to campaign this fall on the theme that the only thing wrong with the economy is that there aren't enough people employed by the government.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 42
Okay, but his record on job growth is pretty good, considering. >>

Considering unemployment is 8% plus?


No. Considering that all the private sector jobs lost as a result of the 2008 crash and subsequent recession have been recovered... just as I originally wrote. Why'd you take the phrase out of context?

What percentage of that 8% figure are government jobs, i.e the very jobs Republicans and conservatives want destroyed? Unemployment would certainly be less than 8% right now if the Republican congress didn't block stimulus spending that would save, protect or create public jobs.

I'm not saying that Obama's stimulus plans are a good idea or that the decrease in public sector jobs and GOP efforts to "shrink the size of government" are necessarily bad things, but it strikes me as extremely hypocritical (or just dumb) to argue for fewer public sector jobs and then complain about public sector unemployment. You're getting exactly what you want and then blame Obama for it. Weird.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I think it's more than just 'never having seen' or 'not understanding'. It appears to me to be a more pathological 'head-in-the-sand' need to deny Obama any credit at all.


there is a lot of that ..

but i've always thought it was more a gut-level thing that made charts irrelevant --

if me and my friends are comfortable ,then the economy is Good;
if we're out of work /worried --the economy is bad
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Seattle Pioneer wrote:

They probably understand a biased presentation of the facts better than you wish they did.

Can you show me some charts that show a different trend?

Jack
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<
Can you show me some charts that show a different trend?

Jack >>



The awkward fact Democrats have to explain away is 8% plus unemployment.


Fancy explanations are likely to avail ye not compared to that statistic, which is what people understand, for good or ill.


Bill Clinton famously said "it's the ECONOMY, stupid." Then during the first two years of his Presidency he spent his time on Hillary care and gay this, gay that and gay the other. He lost for Democrats big time in 1994.


Obama has repeated just that mistake. He may reap the whirlwind once again too.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
The awkward fact Democrats have to explain away is 8% plus unemployment.

Fancy explanations are likely to avail ye not compared to that statistic, which is what people understand, for good or ill.


Not all Americans are simple minded and bad at math as the typical teabagger. I suspect many Americans don't give a rat's @ss what the percent unemployed is as long as they and their family are doing okay. Some don't care what the unemployment rate is because they are going to blame Obama for whatever evil FuxNews tells them to blame him for. Some don't care what the unemployment rate is because they would never vote for a Republican. And some are perfectly capable of understanding that teabagger economic policies have been a dismal failure. The graph in question is simply one piece of the evidence against teabagger ignorance.

But when you sum up all of the above voters, neither party has enough votes to win. This Presidential election, like most in the past several decades, will be decided by the most ignorant voters in America. Historical studies of voter behavior tell us this is true. The swing vote is almost unbelievably uninformed.

That's why Citizens United is so scary. By late September it will not be safe to go within 50 feet of a television for fear of being bombarded by lies and misinformation about the upcoming election. There will be a political commercial playing almost constantly. And all of these commercials will be targeting those most ignorant of voters. The informed voters have already made up their minds.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The awkward fact Democrats have to explain away is 8% plus unemployment.

Fancy explanations are likely to avail...


I don't see anything fancy about a chart that shows job creation numbers over time. Maybe you and I agree that the average voter does find this kind of stuff "fancy". You know, that stuff that them libruls learn in college.

Bill Clinton famously said "it's the ECONOMY, stupid." Then during the first two years of his Presidency he spent his time on Hillary care and gay this, gay that and gay the other.

Yup. Ol' Bill was doin' that gay stuff every time you looked. <LOL>

Obama has repeated just that mistake. He may reap the whirlwind once again too.

I never thought of that. Somebody should have told President Obama that he shouldn't spend his time on Hillary care and gay this, gay that and gay the other.

You've convinced me. ROMNEY 2012 !!! (as long as he doesn't pick a gay or lesbian to run with him, of course).

Jack
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Here's famous actor and Teabagger Craig T. Nelson: "I've been on food stamps and welfare, did anyone help me out? No."

Geez, I kinda liked him in Poltergeist ;-)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<The awkward fact Democrats have to explain away is 8% plus unemployment.

Fancy explanations are likely to avail...

I don't see anything fancy about a chart that shows job creation numbers over time. Maybe you and I agree that the average voter does find this kind of stuff "fancy". You know, that stuff that them libruls learn in college.>>


I hope you guys go with that as your election theme. "Only ignorant hicks are concerned about persistent 8% plus unemployment."


Unfortunately, it's pretty clear that Obama recognizes that he's on the wrong end of the "It's the economy, stupid" argument.



Seattle Pioneer




Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<The awkward fact Democrats have to explain away is 8% plus unemployment.

Fancy explanations are likely to avail ye not compared to that statistic, which is what people understand, for good or ill.

Not all Americans are simple minded and bad at math as the typical teabagger. I suspect many Americans don't give a rat's @ss what the percent unemployed is as long as they and their family are doing okay. >>


You overlook the fact that a lot of people aren't doing OK. The 8%+ unemployment rate affects a lot of people, however much you prefer to ignore that fact.

Here are stories of recent college grads and their experiences and prospects. Perhaps you want to exsplain to them that they are ignorant hicks because they don't see the world through your rosy scenario of selected statistics:


<<<<Jason Page's high-school experience appears to have been plucked straight out of a television show.

Earnest, preppy and popular, Page — whose parents both taught at Hazen — was the sophomore class president and a football player who dated the captain of the cheerleading team.

Seven years later, he is 25 and about to receive a master's degree from Kirkland's Northwest University. The cheerleader, Stacey, is now his wife, and they have two children.

But they — the four of them — live in one room in the basement of Page's parents' house.

It's not as bad as it sounds, Page said. It's a big room and a comfortable house, a white and gray two-story split level built in the late 1970s. But it's not adulthood.

(Read about the trend of young adults moving back in with their parents in today's Pacific Northwest magazine.)

The couple moved there in September 2009, before they had kids, as Page was earning credits for an online degree from Washington State University. They expected to stay for four months.

Three years later, they haven't felt financially secure enough to leave. After graduating from WSU, Page couldn't find a job related to his humanities major and decided to go back to school to obtain a master's degree in teaching.

Now he's job hunting again, and he's terrified. With most schools cutting, not adding, he's had little success. If he can't find something, he plans to increase his hours at the Pro Sports Club in Bellevue, where he has worked part time since high school.>>




http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2018245788_y...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Obama continues to flood the American labor market with foreign workers, for Oh! such liberal purposes!

Surely unemployed young people who supported Obama four years ago wont object?

And when will we see Obama supporting an amnesty bill again for illegal workers?


<<Across the Washington area last week, young workers from Europe arrived in droves, heading for jobs at community swimming pools. Lugging duffel bags, they filled out forms, picked up safety gear and chatted in a variety of Slavic languages, eager to plunge into a summer experience of new friends, skills and culture.

“Now I can meet many people and see America,” gushed Anzhala Scherbina, 21, a petite student from Ukraine whose family spent $3,000 so she could fly here and enter a U.S.-sponsored work-travel program. “My parents say this will be a very good experience,” she said with a giggle.>>


<<The Obama administration is going to great lengths to make sure Scherbina and about 100,000 other foreign student workers are not disappointed. Last summer, the popular program, aimed at creating good will abroad, was rocked by scandal when students working at a candy warehouse in Pennsylvania staged a protest, complaining of isolation and overwork.

On May 11, the State Department issued rules that ban foreign students from jobs that could be harmful, limited them to light, seasonal occupations that are not likely to displace U.S. workers and required closer scrutiny of their conditions.

But the new rules do not address a broader, more profound question that some immigration and labor experts have raised about many sectors of the economy. Today, more than 50 ­million Americans of traditional working age are not employed, and yet a growing number of domestic jobs — from hotel clerks to nurses to computer scientists — are being performed by foreign-born workers. >>


http://by165w.bay165.mail.live.com/default.aspx
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
SP:
You guys want to talk about everything except that bottom line.


The bottom line is that Obama has had to work with a Republican't party whose members have forsaken their oaths of office and obligations to their constituents by making them secondary to political objectives.

Imagine what might have been accomplished had Boehner, McConnell, et al held to their oaths of office and made their priority bettering the nation's economy rather than focusing on how to get Obama out of office. In fact, they might have even avoided the embarrassment of being against principles they previously claimed to have held.

BG
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The bottom line is that Obama has had to work with a Republican't party whose members have forsaken their oaths of office and obligations to their constituents by making them secondary to political objectives.

Imagine what might have been accomplished had Boehner, McConnell, et al held to their oaths of office and made their priority bettering the nation's economy rather than focusing on how to get Obama out of office. In fact, they might have even avoided the embarrassment of being against principles they previously claimed to have held.

BG


Awesome post! Everybody please rec it so it gets on Best Of.

Count Upp
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<Recommendations: 5

SP:
You guys want to talk about everything except that bottom line.

The bottom line is that Obama has had to work with a Republican't party whose members have forsaken their oaths of office and obligations to their constituents by making them secondary to political objectives.>>



Peddle that line and see how you do.


I imagine Romney will be reminding voters of persistent, 8% plus unemployment and Obama's confident promises to solve that in 2008, and his failure to do so.

Of course, he was concentrating his time and political capital on Obamacare and gay this and gay that. Perhaps voters will want to let him off the hook because of that.

History suggests ----not.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
Obama has to run on his record. The leading reason why he is likely to lose the election is poor job growth and high unemployment. Good luck on trying to sell your argument.


Seattle Pioneer




It worked out well! Merry Christmas!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Good luck on trying to sell your argument.

It turned out to be pretty easy.
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement