Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm hoping the independents come out and help Huntsman in New Hampshire. Hes avoiding Iowa which is a smart move for him since its become who can be the most hard core, far-right, This example was NOT expressed in an acceptable manner - Mannahnin caucus. He is the only person running who I would vote for over Obama.

This article is a small glimmer for hope

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poll-americans-obama-liberal-jon-huntsman-aligned-views-article-1.998466

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:The country has strong, Liberal foundations. Liberalism is not a dirty word. Time for America to embrace it's past. Well, most of it,anyway.

You're right. This country was founded on the principles of liberalism.

I suppose conservatives are to blame for labeling the American Left "Liberals" and turning it into a dirty word. But the fact is that the modern American Left has very few liberal positions. To be fair, the Republicans aren't completely liberal either. You'd have to look to libertarians for that...but they also tend to be insane, so it's tricky to find someone who really is "liberal" and not insane.

Mattyrm: yeah, I don't like quote blocks either. So you win. Enjoy.


Plus I'm watching football, so meh.

Bleak_Fantasy wrote:I'm hoping the independents come out and help Huntsman in New Hampshire.

If Huntsman gets anywhere near the GOP nomination it will be a landmark event in the history of American politics.

I know lol. Another 4 years of Obama or 4 years of Romney aint so bad. I'm white and semi-educated so I should be fine.

Ron Paul thinks that the gold standard is a good idea.

Seriously.

He doesn't get economics.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:Obama most certainly has not created more employment.

Source:
http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-gop-job-creation
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/01/boehner-v-pelosi-house-leaders-spar-over-significance-of-jobs-report/

Less people are employed now than 2008. Unless you count government payrolls of course.

Unemployment has been flat both sides of 9% since Jan of 2011, with the most recent print the only one that has broken that range. Since Jan of 2010, unemployment has fallen a grand total of 1.3%, with almost 1/3 of that move in November alone.

That's just the economy gradually healing itself; nobody can take credit for job creation in that environment. Conversely, whoever gets elected in 2012 is going to look like a genius because business balance sheets are generally in great shape, liquidity is excellent, and barring some sort of global Eurozone-led recession, the US economy could really be poised to break out.

sourclams wrote:Unemployment has been flat both sides of 9% since Jan of 2011, with the most recent print the only one that has broken that range. Since Jan of 2010, unemployment has fallen a grand total of 1.3%, with almost 1/3 of that move in November alone.

That's just the economy gradually healing itself; nobody can take credit for job creation in that environment. Conversely, whoever gets elected in 2012 is going to look like a genius because business balance sheets are generally in great shape, liquidity is excellent, and barring some sort of global Eurozone-led recession, the US economy could really be poised to break out.

Thats not correct. unemployment has not fallen. The amount of people meeting the criteria of "unemployed" has. BIG difference. This does not include the number of discouraged workers, workers so discouraged they've just quit looking.

Frazzled wrote:Less people are employed now than 2008. Unless you count government payrolls of course.

Amusing, considering it was during Bush's reign that the number of people employed by the government exceeded the number of people in manufacturing.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Less people are employed now than 2008. Unless you count government payrolls of course.

Amusing, considering it was during Bush's reign that the number of people employed by the government exceeded the number of people in manufacturing.

And?

I actually provided a source for my assertion about more jobs being created in Obama's administraiton (beginning last year, three years in to Obama's administration) than in the Bush administration, but then you assert (without any sources or proof or anything) something to the contrary... whiiich is a trend that started before Obama's administration began.

Thus, funny; "oh that Frazzled, it's hilarious how he ignores all the facts of the issue and keeps on chugging through his same tired old arguments!"

Here, let's try some visual information:


From the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Frazzled wrote:Thats not correct. unemployment has not fallen. The amount of people meeting the criteria of "unemployed" has. BIG difference. This does not include the number of discouraged workers, workers so discouraged they've just quit looking.

A good measure of this might be the labor participation rate (as published by the BLS).

That rate dropped from 64.2% to 64.0% in November, the same time that the unemployment rate dropped by .5 points.

The number of retired will certainly adjust this rate, but I don't think 1.5% of the population has moved from working to retirement since January 2009.

Melissia wrote:I actually provided a source for my assertion about more jobs being created in Obama's administraiton (beginning last year, three years in to Obama's administration) than in the Bush administration, but then you assert (without any sources or proof or anything) something to the contrary... whiiich is a trend that started before Obama's administration began.

Thus, funny; "oh that Frazzled, it's hilarious how he ignores all the facts of the issue and keeps on chugging through his same tired old arguments!"

Here, let's try some visual information:


From the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Wow thats completely notwhat I stated. i stated that Obama has not created more employement. Less people are employed now than when he started. Unless you mean he created more government jobs (wwhich frankly is the only thing he actually can do-the federal government does not 'create' jobs).

Frazzled wrote:Thats not correct. unemployment has not fallen. The amount of people meeting the criteria of "unemployed" has. BIG difference.

No, unemployment is a measure of the unemployed. That is the same metric. You're referring to the total underemployment/those who have exited the labor or job seeking pool. And yes, that number is larger, partially as a result of unemployment benefit extensions tailing off and people "falling out" of the system.

Regardless, the economy is healing itself, socioeconomic divides are getting wider (haves versus have-nots) and nobody can possibly claim victory on job creation.

sourclams wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Thats not correct. unemployment has not fallen. The amount of people meeting the criteria of "unemployed" has. BIG difference.

No, unemployment is a measure of the unemployed. That is the same metric. You're referring to the total underemployment/those who have exited the labor or job seeking pool. And yes, that number is larger, partially as a result of unemployment benefit extensions tailing off and people "falling out" of the system.

Regardless, the economy is healing itself, socioeconomic divides are getting wider (haves versus have-nots) and nobody can possibly claim victory on job creation.

The unemployment rate is a measure of the unemployed who are aqctively looking for work, and within a specific period of time of unemployement. It does not include those who have quit looking for work. but guess what, they are still unemployed.

Frazzled wrote:i stated that Obama has not created more employement.

No you didn't.

Frazzled wrote:Less people are employed now than 2008. Unless you count government payrolls of course.

That's what you said.

Which isn't really even sourced, by the way, it's just you pulling random facts out of your head.

sourclams wrote:No, unemployment is a measure of the unemployed. That is the same metric. You're referring to the total underemployment/those who have exited the labor or job seeking pool. And yes, that number is larger, partially as a result of unemployment benefit extensions tailing off and people "falling out" of the system.

U3, the "official" unemployment rate, only counts those who have looked for work in the last 4 weeks.

Which is why participation rate (if controlled for retirement) is a better metric than the unemployment rate or even the number of jobs created. Number of jobs created is a poor metric because the population of working adults is growing.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:i stated that Obama has not created more employement.

No you didn't.

Frazzled wrote:Less people are employed now than 2008. Unless you count government payrolls of course.

That's what you said.

Which isn't really even sourced, by the way, it's just you pulling random facts out of your head.

Not at all. i didn't even say he created more government jobs. He might have. With $1.5T in deficit spending in one year thats likely. But other than that Obama didn't create. . The Federal Government doesn't "create" jobs outside of its direct employment or contracts.

We're splitting hairs over terminology, so I'm not going to bother pursuing that one.

As to the chart Melissia posted and you responded to, it's nonsensical. The recession was at its most severe in 2H2008-1H2009. Then economic recovery began 2H2009-1H2010 before flattening out.

You can't blame Bush for "destroying" jobs between June 08 and May 09, nor does Obama get credit for "creating" jobs at the end of a bottoming pattern.

biccat wrote:Which is why participation rate (if controlled for retirement) is a better metric than the unemployment rate or even the number of jobs created. Number of jobs created is a poor metric because the population of working adults is growing.

Oh, so you suggest the population is only growing during Obama administration?

Because perhaps it's just me, but I think that using your reasoning (that population growth lessens the effect of job creation), the population growth would make such huge job losses as were shown during the end of the Bush administration have a bigger effect.

sourclams wrote:We're splitting hairs over terminology, so I'm not going to bother pursuing that one.

As to the chart Melissia posted and you responded to, it's nonsensical. The recession was at its most severe in 2H2008-1H2009. Then economic recovery began 2H2009-1H2010 before flattening out.

You can't blame Bush for "destroying" jobs between June 08 and May 09, nor does Obama get credit for "creating" jobs at the end of a bottoming pattern.

Agreed.

sourclams wrote:You can't blame Bush for "destroying" jobs between June 08 and May 09

I can blame the Republican party's push for deregulation.

And I do.

But you can't somehow give Obama miraculous credit for job creation, as that chart suggests. A Chinchillah could have been the United States President, and that chart would look exactly the same. It's simply the way the calendar fell out between LY Bush and FY Obama that creates a happy coincidence.

sourclams wrote:But you can't somehow give Obama miraculous credit for job creation, as that chart suggests.

I can give him credit for helping facilitate it, yes. He worked with the SBA to enhance their abilities, and produced stimulus packages, etc to do exactly that.

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:Which is why participation rate (if controlled for retirement) is a better metric than the unemployment rate or even the number of jobs created. Number of jobs created is a poor metric because the population of working adults is growing.

Oh, so you suggest the population is only growing during Obama administration?

I'm not sure how you possibly could have inferred that from my comments.

Your comment is seriously baffling.

Melissia wrote:Because perhaps it's just me, but I think that using your reasoning (that population growth lessens the effect of job creation), the population growth would make such huge job losses as were shown during the end of the Bush administration have a bigger effect.

Of course large numbers of job losses in a small population have a greater effect than large numbers of job losses in a large population. Similarly, small numbers of job created in a small population have a greater effect than small numbers of jobs created in a large population.

The fact is that job growth is currently unable to match population growth. This is a problem. The number of unemployed (not using the government's definition here) will therefore increase until the number of jobs created outpaces the number of new people entering the labor force.

Melissia wrote:I can blame the Republican party's push for deregulation.

And I do.

How strange. From the link:

On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8, and by the House 362-57. The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.

Hey, don't look at me and think I'd defend Clinton.

He's done lots of questionable things, like his pushing for the utterly unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act.

But the deregulation was primarily pushed by, and is still primarily pushed by, republicans. I don't think this is in dispute.

Melissia wrote:Hey, don't look at me and think I'd defend Clinton.

He's done lots of questionable things, like his pushing for the utterly unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act.

But the deregulation was primarily pushed by, and is still primarily pushed by, republicans. I don't think this is in dispute.

So you're saying Clinton was a Republican? Or that a 90-8 (Senate) and 362-57 (House) vote only included Republicans in '99?

I'm not sure where you're getting your facts from. But I'd certainly be interested in finding out.

biccat wrote:So you're saying Clinton was a Republican?

No, I'm saying I wouldn't defend his actions.

You're a better person than me, Melissia. I would have a hard time arguing with people who don't use facts, are overly pedantic, and are intellectually dishonest.

Still, biccat, if Obummer is such a bad president surely the Republicans will beat him in 2012 and surely you would love a new Battalion or Battleforce when that happens, right? Or do you not really believe the things you say on here and just waste our time with the half truths and sophistry that you refuse to back up?

Samus_aran115 wrote:Hey posters. Where can I find that political graph thing? I have a feeling my views have changed since deciding to enlist.

What you going in for Sam?