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.

Every president in times of recession, including ALL the Republican ones of the past 30 years, have added government jobs to help end a recession. But Mitt Romney doesn't seem to have any understanding of economics like the extreme party base he is pandering to.

BrassScorpion wrote:Every president in times of recession, including ALL the Republican ones of the past 30 years, have added government jobs to help end the recession. But Mitt Romney doesn't seem to have any understanding of economics like the extreme party base he is pandering to.

He understands economics. Obama doesn't. This isn't even Keynesian spending on capital goods. Its just fattening the union payrolls.

Good thing - per Obama - the private sector is just fine.

Republican Kerry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Good thing - per Obama - the private sector is just fine.

It is. It needed to shed fat.

dogma wrote:Republican Kerry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Good thing - per Obama - the private sector is just fine.

It is. It needed to shed fat.

I'll tell that to the 15% unemployed. I'm sure they'll be supportive of your opinion.

Frazzled wrote:
I'll tell that to the 15% unemployed. I'm sure they'll be supportive of your opinion.

They will. I have money, which buys boobs, and brains.

Also, they were the fat.

BrassScorpion wrote:Every president in times of recession, including ALL the Republican ones of the past 30 years, have added government jobs to help end a recession. But Mitt Romney doesn't seem to have any understanding of economics like the extreme party base he is pandering to.

That's RT.......they're not exactly known for stellar reporting or being neutral

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
I'll tell that to the 15% unemployed. I'm sure they'll be supportive of your opinion.

They will. I have money, which buys boobs, and brains.

It would be humorous actually to see you go to unemployement office and make this argument. To be on the safe side, you might pre-call 911...

Frazzled wrote:
It would be humorous actually to see you go to unemployement office and make this argument. To be on the safe side, you might pre-call 911...

Pretty sure "Hookers!" will succor most.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
It would be humorous actually to see you go to unemployement office and make this argument. To be on the safe side, you might pre-call 911...

Pretty sure "Hookers!" will succor most.

That might indeed get a more positive response.

One man can't fix the economy, anyone with a brain knows that.

Consequently, blaming one person for the problems with the economy is equally stupid.

You can't create jobs if there is no demand for products/services provided. The jobs will just flop. People need to want to spend their income on something to create these jobs, not give more money to the so called "job creators" who don't create jobs, demand does.

I pity the country as a whole for not understanding this basic concept.

Pst, the President doesn't actually have the power to fix the economy, it's the Fed, congressional spending and the market itself.

BrassScorpion carpet bombs the OT with more RT video; say it ain't so.

I still wonder how Romney will do so much stuff in his first 100 days, when it takes Congress at least 100 days to even agree to disagree on something...

Surtur wrote:Pst, the President doesn't actually have the power to fix the economy, it's the Fed, congressional spending and the market itself.

On the other hand, he only needs to pick up a phone to the EPA to crush one.

I thought Congress approves the person in charge of the EPA and passes all the laws and regulations they enforce?

d-usa wrote:I still wonder how Romney will do so much stuff in his first 100 days, when it takes Congress at least 100 days to even agree to disagree on something...

Ruling by executive order? I believe that was a prime complaint of the Republicans too.

AustonT wrote:

d-usa wrote:I still wonder how Romney will do so much stuff in his first 100 days, when it takes Congress at least 100 days to even agree to disagree on something...

Ruling by executive order? I believe that was a prime complaint of the Republicans too.

Executive orders are evil (if the other party uses them).

d-usa wrote:I thought Congress approves the person in charge of the EPA and passes all the laws and regulations they enforce?

You thought wrong. The advise and consent to the nomination (I think) but that persons is employed at the direction and pleasure of the President.

Regulations? Once the enabling legislation is passed then the regulations come out. The agencies have a proven ability to expand or contract the exact extent of that enabling legislation with apparent ease.

d-usa wrote:

AustonT wrote:

d-usa wrote:I still wonder how Romney will do so much stuff in his first 100 days, when it takes Congress at least 100 days to even agree to disagree on something...

Ruling by executive order? I believe that was a prime complaint of the Republicans too.

Executive orders are evil (if the other party uses them).

Did you know it is an EO that keeps me from smoking inside Federal buildings? Fascists!

AustonT wrote:BrassScorpion carpet bombs the OT with more RT video; say it ain't so.

Yea I pretty much just roll my eyes when I see his name on the forum anymore

AustonT wrote:BrassScorpion carpet bombs the OT with more RT video; say it ain't so.

I'm guessing that RT isn't Rotten Tomatoes.

Rogue Trader? Rogue Trader 2K???

He's not stupid, he's just confident that the few people who donated millions of dollars for him and his super pacs, will win him through. His whole platform is to slander Obama, and he'll tell any lie to do it, because if you show the same lies over and over again, people will believe it.

Frazzled wrote:I'll tell that to the 15% unemployed. I'm sure they'll be supportive of your opinion.

The who? Unemployment is at 8.2% (per the BLS in May 2012).

whigwam wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I'll tell that to the 15% unemployed. I'm sure they'll be supportive of your opinion.

The who? Unemployment is at 8.2% (per the BLS in May 2012).

He's referring to real unemployment.

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
It would be humorous actually to see you go to unemployement office and make this argument. To be on the safe side, you might pre-call 911...

Pretty sure "Hookers!" will succor most.

That might indeed get a more positive response.

The idea is to tell them "Free hookers!" then make the argument. They'll be busy and will remember me for giving them free hookers, the argument won't matter.

dogma wrote:

whigwam wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I'll tell that to the 15% unemployed. I'm sure they'll be supportive of your opinion.

The who? Unemployment is at 8.2% (per the BLS in May 2012).

He's referring to real unemployment.

Oh right, I forgot we use the U-6 unemployment rate when attacking politicians we dislike, and the actual unemployment rate when we're playing apologist to the ones we do like. My mistake.

BrassScorpion news posts are as predictable as Frazzled news posts.

DakkaDakka - Fair & Balanced.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Good thing - per Obama - the private sector is just fine.

It is. It needed to shed fat.

The overhwelming majority of the job loss was in the public sector, not the private sector.

A three to one ratio, in fact.

Republicans have created so much job loss through reduction of the public sector that the growth of the private sector hasn't been able to keep up very well.

whigwam wrote:
Oh right, I forgot we use the U-6 unemployment rate when attacking politicians we dislike, and the actual unemployment rate when we're playing apologist to the ones we do like. My mistake.

The gap between U-6 and U-3 has noticeably increased in the last decade or so.

Melissia wrote:
Republicans have created so much job loss through reduction of the public sector that the growth of the private sector hasn't been able to keep up very well.

Nah, the problem is that we simply don't need all that many people to work. Lots of Americans are superfluous given our employment culture.

I was referring to the actual statistics of job loss versus gain this year.

Namely, we quite literally lost three times as many public sector jobs as private sector jobs, and the end result of public plus private sector job loss was that we had very little job growth.