Jobs!Jobs!Jobs!

[michstfr]

Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post suggests that be the Obama 2012 re-election slogan. No seriously, stop laughing.

He writes:

Obama talks about “winning the future,” but that’s too nebulous. I’d suggest something pithier: jobs, jobs, jobs.

So after promising all these "new jobs" from teh stimulus that never materialized Mr. Robinson suggests exactly what? Remember their promises never came true, and now they blame unforeseen "headwinds" in the economy. Except those headwinds were created by them, Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, EPA regulations and basically the most anti-business administration ever. But more importantly even if you accept their response that they simply did not see these things coming then they are completely incompetent and are not fit for office. So either they are sham artists who pretended to know something they knew was false or they had no clue what they were doing and are total buffoons.

What exactly is the follow up to that slogan for the President: "Give me a second term, I swear I will get it right this time."

Jobs!

 

[Merge]

Obama will run on jobs if we somehow fall under 8% by early next year.

With that said.. the consensus is that the stimulus was a difference of 1.2-3 million people employed.

We might not think that was enough for what we paid, but things may have been far worse without it.

Fortunately for those of us who support Obama, he doesn't need a slogan to win. With this field of republican candidates, Obama doesn't even need to campaign.

 

[HALL85]

I think it's fair to say Obama has failed miserably on the jobs front. Creating unsustainable jobs with an overpriced stimulus package isn't really much to take credit. Today's report on manufacturing being the worst in over two years, coupled with the continued housing mess are not causes for optimism. I just don't see unemployment dropping below 9% anytime soon. If anything, I think we're headed back to 10%+.

Not sure it matters who the Republicans nominate. Essentially, Obama will be running against the unemployment rate and economy.

 

[SnakeTom]

The GOP got what they wanted which is first & foremost to defeat the Presidents re-election bid. They pushed thru a job killing bill which will make OB look bad & hurt his re-election chances while they will be constantly screaming where are the jobs - jobs - jobs totally ignoring how many jobs left our shores during the last GOP administration.

TK

 

[SPK145]

Yes, during the last GOP administration only 4,423,000 jobs were created.

DC can't create jobs, they can only get out of the way and let the market do its thing. That's a dirty word/phrase to this regime.

And this recent debt ceiling bill is an abomination fueled by lies and scare mongering.

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by SnakeTom:
The GOP got what they wanted which is first & foremost to defeat the Presidents re-election bid. They pushed thru a job killing bill which will make OB look bad & hurt his re-election chances while they will be constantly screaming where are the jobs - jobs - jobs totally ignoring how many jobs left our shores during the last GOP administration.

TK

Sure, blame the Republicans for OB's failure. Fact is he forgot about the economy to advance his dopey agenda (i.e. healthcare reform) and now its chic to blame the other party to deflect his own ineptitude. But this is what you get when you elect a guy that has no experience...are you really surprised?
This post was edited on 8/2 9:54 PM by HALL85

 

[SnakeTom]

Can you in all honestly say that GWB did a good job with the economy. Those jobs did not disappear over night. We have been losing jobs for many years but it accellerated greatly under the GWB Administration. The thought process was as long as there are profits why care about jobs leaving for other countries. In fact SPK echoed that many times on our boards during the 2004 election. Well it does matter & that is a big reason why the economy collapsed during the GWB Administration. Your hatred of OB can't cover that up. I am not defending the President however. Fact is I do not think he has done a very good job but I'm not going to put my head in the sand and pretend everything was rosey when he took over.

The polarization in Washington is disgracefull from both sides of the aisle. All they're concerned with is the next election & F&$k the electorate. I hear jobs-jobs-jobs from both sides but neither side does a damn thing about it as that is not their primary agendas. All they care about is power. Unfortunately I do not see any of the candidates currently running as an improvement from what we have now which is a dysfunctional government in both the executive and legislative branches.

Tom K

 

[HALL85]

So is that going to continue to be OB's position? At least I'm better than GWB?

I agree that the polarization in Washington amongst the leadership continues to be childish and unproductive. Boehner, Pelosi, Reed, etc. are not worth a plug nickel. I do think the media however misprepresents the Tea Party and most people still don't get it. The Tea Party is not an organized whacky right wing movement. The Tea Party represents a growning feeling in this country that people are frustrated with our government in general and want people to tackle the real issues rather than the same old, same old. The Tea Party is disorganized, but it's an alternative option for people to voice their displeasure with the current state. Based on the result of this so called plan which is a joke (like we need another commission???), I think the Tea Party candidates for 2012 are the big winners since they can continue to pounce on Washington's inability to tackle the real problems with real solutions. I wouldn't be surprised if they continue to make more inroads in the next election. But the media and the Dem's and Rep's will continue to hang labels on them to scare people or box in a party that doesn't fit a box....good luck with that.

 

[SPK145]

Originally posted by SnakeTom:
The thought process was as long as there are profits why care about jobs leaving for other countries. In fact SPK echoed that many times on our boards during the 2004 election.

Tom K

I've NEVER, EVER said anything like that. It has been proven that outsourcing actually CREATES jobs in America.

Originally posted by SnakeTom:
Can you in all honestly say that GWB did a good job with the economy. Those jobs did not disappear over night. We have been losing jobs for many years but it accellerated greatly under the GWB Administration.

Tom K

If that is all Bush's fault, then the HUGE loss in jobs in the last 2 1/2 years is ALL Obama's fault. And at one point during the Bush administration, jobs had increased by 8,806,000 before the economic crash caused by stupid, silly government policies that coerced banks to make known bad loans. When that came home to roost, the economy tanked. Under Obama, we've lost 2,867,000 jobs. You should be screaming for his ouster. Seems your hatred of Bush and the GOP covers that up.

Originally posted by SnakeTom:
The polarization in Washington is disgracefull from both sides of the aisle. All they're concerned with is the next election & F&$k the electorate. I hear jobs-jobs-jobs from both sides but neither side does a damn thing about it as that is not their primary agendas. All they care about is power. Unfortunately I do not see any of the candidates currently running as an improvement from what we have now which is a dysfunctional government in both the executive and legislative branches.

Tom K

Oh you're 100% correct here. Hope and change though. And I think the judicial branch is also dysfunctional, BTW.

He who governs least, governs best.
This post was edited on 8/3 10:05 AM by SPK145

 

[Section112]

The system is completely broken that is for sure.

Until we get term limits and campaign finance reform, our legislators will only be motivated to keeping their cushy jobs and pensions by ultimately getting reelected. The needs of the citiznes will be secondary.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by SPK145:

It has been proven that outsourcing actually CREATES jobs in America.

That is one of those vacuum arguments. In a thriving economy that was the case, not in a recessionary economy and it could easily be shown that every job outsourced means 2 jobs lost in America during the last 3 years.

Originally posted by SPK145:

Under Obama, we've lost 2,867,000 jobs. You should be screaming for his ouster. Seems your hatred of Bush and the GOP covers that up.

The far majority of jobs were lost in Obama's first three months when we got to almost 9% which is just under where we are today.

If you want to argue that Obama hasn't done enough to help, that's fine.. but saying we lost almost 3 million jobs under Obama is quite misleading. He didn't have a chance to do anything before those jobs were already gone.

April 2008 4.8% unemployment
April 2009 8.9% unemployment

Obama had nothing to do with that.

 

[HALL85]

Merge, on the A to F scale, how would you rate Obama's performance on jobs and the economy?

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by HALL85:
Merge, on the A to F scale, how would you rate Obama's performance on jobs and the economy?

As I mentioned above... the trend of unemployment would not have changed no matter who won the previous election.

So looking at 8.9% unemployment in April 2009 which is really before Obama could have aided or hurt employment, and thinking about where we are now and what else we could have done...

Since April 2009, estimates without the stimulus put unemployment above 11%. In my eyes, that is a success. Here is a graph of the CBO numbers from last year.

Obama can obviously not force companies to hire people. Demand for consumer products needs to grow, and that is just not happening without jobs.

I think the one area that Obama can step in and have an effect on jobs would be infrastructure investments which he is now pushing.

The housing market is still a huge problem and hopefully it has bottomed out, if we haven't the government may need to step in as McCain was suggesting yesterday on meet the press and buy mortgages.

With all of that in mind and coming out of the worst financial crisis in my lifetime, I would give Obama a B- so far on jobs and the economy.

 

[HALL85]

Not sure how you give someone a B- who hasn't demonstrated any ability to offer a plan or suggestion to improve the job climate in the private sector, which are going to be the jobs that are sustainable and are not going to be funded with increased taxes or debt.

And do you really think we have come out of the crisis???

Since I asked, there are two major things, among many, I think he's done an awful job:
1) He would have been better served to take the $1 trillion from the stimulus and provide the appropriate incentives to the private sector to accellerate training and hiring. Sustainable jobs is what we need, not short term make-work ones.
2) All that mis-spent energy and time on the joke that is Healthcare Reform when it should have been spent on the economy and joblessness.

Based on that alone, I give him a "D-". It would have been an "F" because of what he did inherit, but he's shown himself to be the lightweight that many of us saw him to be. A "B -"...I would have loved to been a student of yours in college....lol

 

[Merge]

The private sector is sitting on a ton of cash right now. The only incentive that will create jobs is demand from consumers.

So, if you were in my class and I gave you an exam with half of the answers already wrong... You answer the other half right and I should still give you a D-?? Is that your logic?


I agree he could and should have done more hence the B-.

It seems that will be his focus in the coming months which is good.

Are we out of the crisis? No, not even close but there are some signs that we are heading in the right direction. GM's recent report that they doubled their profit over the same quarter last year was pretty encouraging to me.

Once the housing market has settled, I think real recovery will start to happen. I also think we will see around 8% unemployment by March.

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by Merge:
The private sector is sitting on a ton of cash right now. The only incentive that will create jobs is demand from consumers.

So, if you were in my class and I gave you an exam with half of the answers already wrong... You answer the other half right and I should still give you a D-?? Is that your logic?


I agree he could and should have done more hence the B-.

It seems that will be his focus in the coming months which is good.

Are we out of the crisis? No, not even close but there are some signs that we are heading in the right direction. GM's recent report that they doubled their profit over the same quarter last year was pretty encouraging to me.

Once the housing market has settled, I think real recovery will start to happen. I also think we will see around 8% unemployment by March.

If all that cash is sitting on the sidelines, wouldn't you recommend policy changes that make incentivize them to free it up short term? How do you create demand from consumers if they're not working or working part time jobs???

If you give someone a B - for doing nothing, that's a pretty low bar.

I'm glad that he's finally going to focus on jobs now that most of his term is over. Finally, you ever think GM's results had more to do with Toyota's failures??? And all signals point to a worsening of the housing market, so a recovery is not happening for several years.

 

[SHUMA04]

It amazes me how little focus the media gives to Obama's disastrous decision to focus on healthcare at the expense of the economy through 2009.

He had both houses of Congress and an incredible goodwill among the populace. I think when historians look back at this period they will be very harsh.

The only thing keeping Obama in the game right now for reelection - and at this point I still think he wins in a squeaker - in a heavily partisan media that appears far more emotionally attached to this president than even past Dem presidents such as Clinton and Carter.

Otherwise, at this point of his presidency, it would be fair to suggest that Carter faced stronger head winds and also made a far more sincere and focused effort to address his country's precarious economy.

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by SHUMA04:
It amazes me how little focus the media gives to Obama's disastrous decision to focus on healthcare at the expense of the economy through 2009.

He had both houses of Congress and an incredible goodwill among the populace. I think when historians look back at this period they will be very harsh.

The only thing keeping Obama in the game right now for reelection - and at this point I still think he wins in a squeaker - in a heavily partisan media that appears far more emotionally attached to this president than even past Dem presidents such as Clinton and Carter.

Otherwise, at this point of his presidency, it would be fair to suggest that Carter faced stronger head winds and also made a far more sincere and focused effort to address his country's precarious economy.

Well said. I think the deciding factor in the next election will be the younger vote which came out in droves and put him over the top. It's an n of 2 but two of my children voted for him, and now say they will not. I think there's three reasons: 1) That segment was caught up in being part of history (first black President - I guess 1/2 black was good enough...LOL), 2) They just couldn't relate to McCain and 3) They just wanted the anti-Bush. These kids (not just mine..) aren't dumb though. They see their future just got a lot bleaker in the past three years and that he hasn't demonstrated any leadership. Obama will be running against the unemployment rate and if it is still 9% or even worse 10%, he's toast vs. anyone the Republicans (with the exception of Michelle Bachman....)

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by HALL85:

Originally posted by Merge:
The private sector is sitting on a ton of cash right now. The only incentive that will create jobs is demand from consumers.

So, if you were in my class and I gave you an exam with half of the answers already wrong... You answer the other half right and I should still give you a D-?? Is that your logic?


I agree he could and should have done more hence the B-.

It seems that will be his focus in the coming months which is good.

Are we out of the crisis? No, not even close but there are some signs that we are heading in the right direction. GM's recent report that they doubled their profit over the same quarter last year was pretty encouraging to me.

Once the housing market has settled, I think real recovery will start to happen. I also think we will see around 8% unemployment by March.

If all that cash is sitting on the sidelines, wouldn't you recommend policy changes that make incentivize them to free it up short term? How do you create demand from consumers if they're not working or working part time jobs???

If you give someone a B - for doing nothing, that's a pretty low bar.

I'm glad that he's finally going to focus on jobs now that most of his term is over. Finally, you ever think GM's results had more to do with Toyota's failures??? And all signals point to a worsening of the housing market, so a recovery is not happening for several years.

Intel for example is holding a record amount of cash, they are waiting for the right opportunity to build manufacturing plants. They will do so when the demand for their products requires it.

We did accomplish a small amount of that through the payroll tax cut, but obviously not nearly large enough. I just don't really agree that we can give enough incentives to hire when there is no market for products.

I think there is an opportunity for large infrastructure investment, and that might be our best option for recovery.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by HALL85:

Originally posted by SHUMA04:
It amazes me how little focus the media gives to Obama's disastrous decision to focus on healthcare at the expense of the economy through 2009.

He had both houses of Congress and an incredible goodwill among the populace. I think when historians look back at this period they will be very harsh.

The only thing keeping Obama in the game right now for reelection - and at this point I still think he wins in a squeaker - in a heavily partisan media that appears far more emotionally attached to this president than even past Dem presidents such as Clinton and Carter.

Otherwise, at this point of his presidency, it would be fair to suggest that Carter faced stronger head winds and also made a far more sincere and focused effort to address his country's precarious economy.

Well said. I think the deciding factor in the next election will be the younger vote which came out in droves and put him over the top. It's an n of 2 but two of my children voted for him, and now say they will not. I think there's three reasons: 1) That segment was caught up in being part of history (first black President - I guess 1/2 black was good enough...LOL), 2) They just couldn't relate to McCain and 3) They just wanted the anti-Bush. These kids (not just mine..) aren't dumb though. They see their future just got a lot bleaker in the past three years and that he hasn't demonstrated any leadership. Obama will be running against the unemployment rate and if it is still 9% or even worse 10%, he's toast vs. anyone the Republicans (with the exception of Michelle Bachman....)

In all honesty, the field of republicans is just not good enough.
Even if unemployment were 10%, I don't see him losing.

(in all likelihood unemployment will be well below 9% by next Nov.)

 

[HALL85]

Merge, I have to disagree on that point. If unemployment is 10% he is in an undefendable position. Any Republican candidate that can articulate a plan to boost the economy and fuel jobs growth will drown out all of his empty rhetoric. No one will care meaninfully about any other issue.

 

[Merge]

I would hope you are correct and that the election means something, but polls lately show that voters are blaming the GOP more and more.
The majority of Americans wanted to see higher taxes for the rich, and the republicans would not budge on that issue and I think that hurt them. 63% of Americans now want the super committee to raise taxes on the rich, are they going to block what the majority of Americans think is the right thing to do again?


They need to be able to get independent voters on their side, and moving further to the right will not do it.

Independent voters saw through Boehner's BS when he had meetings with the president about finding the common ground and then walks away from the talks, goes in front of the camera and asks where Obama's plan is?

Obama is going to come out with his jobs plan in the coming weeks. That gives voters over a year to forget that it look him this long to come up with something meaningful.

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by Merge:
Obama is going to come out with his jobs plan in the coming weeks. That gives voters over a year to forget that it look him this long to come up with something meaningful.

A little late for that....don't you think people will ask, why it took him three years to come out with a jobs plan??? It doesn't matter, because if unemployment continues to run high come election time, the population will only care about results rather than a "plan".

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by HALL85:

don't you think people will ask, why it took him three years to come out with a jobs plan???

Bluntly, no. I don't think people will ask that enough to matter and you may be giving voters too much credit to think they would.

I also don't see anyone that has a chance on the right.

Just my honest opinion, nothing to do with who I would vote for.
I voted for Kerry but I thought he was a weak candidate and would lose.

 

[HALL85]

I would expect the Republican candidate to reinforce that message and lack of attention to jobs, especially with high unemployment.

Well, not only was Kerry weak, but thankfully we didn't get stuck with the lying scumbag Edwards. Can you imagine if he was exposed while as VP????

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by HALL85:
I would expect the Republican candidate to reinforce that message and lack of attention to jobs, especially with high unemployment.

Well, not only was Kerry weak, but thankfully we didn't get stuck with the lying scumbag Edwards. Can you imagine if he was exposed while as VP????

Yeah, we dodged a bullet with Edwards. Although, we were also probably -1 maniacal scream away from having president Howard Dean who would have been a much better challenger to Bush.

I expect employment to be the message as well, but again, I think Obama coming out in the coming weeks with some kind of jobs plan will quiet the argument.
I think it will be a fairly progressive plan which is a win/win for democrats right now. If it is blocked by republicans, people will be upset that republicans keep blocking everything Obama tries to do.

The public is generally not happy with conservatives right now over the debt/budget debate.

 

[HALL85]

Correction: The public is unhappy with Congress.

Like I said before, no one will care about a plan; they will only care about the number.

 

[Merge]

There was a recent poll that showed an unfavorable rating for the republican party at 59% which is an all time low. Yes, congress in general is also unfavorable because people from both sides are disgusted but republicans are 10% points higher than at this point last year and the democrats are the same.

That was post debt ceiling debate which 63% of Americans did not agree with the republican approach and wanted to see tax increases as well as cuts.

We'll see what happens, but again... as bad as Obama looks, the public is starting to blame republicans for blocking what the majority of Americans wanted.

 

[HALL85]

Merge, the polls I saw indicated that the public was disgusted equally with both sides of Congress. You have to remember also that most of these polls are not just of those that are likely voters, but rather general population.

Obama is not running against the Republican congress. His approval ratings continue to drop and I think what's worse, is most people are just turning him off. I think voter turnout in the next election will drop precipitously because of the growing ambivilence toward Obama and a Republican candidate that is a safe choice. BO has been part of the debt crisis nonsense and someone like Romney can point to that. Dysfunctional Congress with a President that couldn't get either party to work together. Position yourself as someone that was not part of that mess and a business person that knows how to generate jobs....Marketing 101.

 

[shu09]

I think only Romney and Perry can beat Obama. I am most fearful of Perry. He has been groomed by the elite all his life for this job and he would be an epic disaster as President. I'm very afraid.

 

[SPK145]

How so, shu09?

Can he be any worse than the current utter trainwreck of a president?
This post was edited on 8/11 11:36 PM by SPK145

 

[shu09]

Originally posted by SPK145:
How so, shu09?

Can he be any worse than the current utter trainwreck of a president?

This post was edited on 8/11 11:36 PM by SPK145

Well I'm coming from the point of view that Obama has been an average president, far from a train wreck and far from a great one.

Rick Perry is a fraud, plain and simple. He will run on the christian conservative platform, similar to George W. Bush in 2000. In fact, he's more like Bush than any potential candidate out there and even attended the same church. Perry's decision making will be guided by an almost radical religious viewpoint, certainly not something I want imposed on me.

Perry mandated that girls in his state receive the HPV vaccine, a dictatorial move forcing his opinion on everyone in his state. Talk about the government taking over healthcare! This was a direct assault on the freedom of parents to choose how to care for their children. Thankfully he relented to public pressure and allowed the order to be repealed.

Perry endorsed Rudy Giuliani in 2008, something I can only laugh at. Rudy Giuliani is a buffoon, plain and simple.

Perry has a weak record on border control and made reckless comments about the secession of Texas, a ridiculous idea this day in age. He also supported the Trans-Texas Corridor, a project that would have directly impacted the sovereignty of the United States by opening up the southern border to all kinds of trouble coming in through Mexico. Effectively, this project would have pretty much rendered the US/Mexican border as just a line on a map. Luckily, this project was never realized.

This man represents the status quo, the elite establishment of the Republican Party. He is not an "average Joe," he's been groomed by powerful people all his life. He is their chosen puppet and he'll be an awful president if elected. I hope the American people are smart enough to see through his smoke and mirrors.

 

[HALL85]

My opinion of the debate last night:
* Paul: Actually, I like him the most because he is practical and doesn't care about political correctness. Funny, but even with the age factor and his approach, he's probably better at compromise than our youthful President.
* Romney: Clearly looks the most Presidential and has been working on rehersed responses in those areas where Obama would attack (ie. linking Obamacare to Mass health plan). It's his to lose right now.
* Bachman: Just can't take her seriously...this years version of Palin.
* Santorum: Yawn.
* Pawlenty: Other candidates did a great job linking him to Obama.
* Huntsman: Came across credibly to me. Has a strong record for creating jobs in Utah, but is that material enough (probably so, if we can elect a "community organizer" to the office). Might be Romney's toughest challenger down the road.
* Gingrich: It would be like having an angry professor running the country.
* Cain: Loose cannon...has to clarify every comment he makes and gave the impression that he's learning on the job. Good entertainment though.

 

[shu09]

I actually agree with most of that. Ron Paul absolutely hit it out of the park on foreign policy. He put Santorum in his place.

Pawlenty is a broken record. He's all about talking points as just about everything he says has a shot at Obama included. He has no chance at the nomination.

Bachmann is absolutely Palin 2.0. She won't win either.

I do disagree a bit on Romney. He's full of rehearsed lines and was playing not to lose. I don't agree that sounds presidential, it sounds like a typical political hack to me.

Huntsman is a good man but I just don't see a path towards the nomination for him.

Gingrich may be the smartest man in the field and I don't think his campaign is done like so many of the pundits say. There are 15 months until the election and 6-8 months before the end of the primary season. Newt may have a better chance winning the general election than the Republican primary but he isn' done yet.

The big winners last night were Rick Perry and Barack Obama. There were no new ideas mentioned, just a bunch of talking points, political rhetoric and petty arguments. What amazes me is this: all the media and our politicians talk about is jobs, jobs, jobs. Nobody in either party has a real plan wih specifics and the reason is simple: government cannot create jobs out of thin air.

 

[SPK145]

Originally posted by shu09:
Rick Perry is a fraud, plain and simple. He will run on the christian conservative platform, similar to George W. Bush in 2000. In fact, he's more like Bush than any potential candidate out there and even attended the same church. Perry's decision making will be guided by an almost radical religious viewpoint, certainly not something I want imposed on me.

That is concerning but he's no Bush. As a matter of fact, they can't stand each other.

Originally posted by shu09:
Perry mandated that girls in his state receive the HPV vaccine, a dictatorial move forcing his opinion on everyone in his state. Talk about the government taking over healthcare! This was a direct assault on the freedom of parents to choose how to care for their children. Thankfully he relented to public pressure and allowed the order to be repealed.

That was very scary but it was voluntary with an easy opt-out for parents. Still not right. This scares you but Obamacare doesn't? That is a far worse boondoggle than this. You ain't seen nothing yet!

Originally posted by shu09:
Perry endorsed Rudy Giuliani in 2008, something I can only laugh at. Rudy Giuliani is a buffoon, plain and simple.

Giuliani actually leads over Obama in recent polling.

Originally posted by shu09:
He also supported the Trans-Texas Corridor, a project that would have directly impacted the sovereignty of the United States by opening up the southern border to all kinds of trouble coming in through Mexico.

Also very scary yet Obama is much worse on immigration and that doesn't bother you, you say he is an average president? That doesn't add up.

Originally posted by shu09:
This man represents the status quo, the elite establishment of the Republican Party. He is not an "average Joe," he's been groomed by powerful people all his life. He is their chosen puppet and he'll be an awful president if elected.

He was actually initially groomed by the Democrats in Texas before switching to Republican. Talk about grooming by the elite. And again, this is different from Obama how?

Perry is a bit scary, certainly better than the current mess, and I can see him appealing to independents, the sector that really elects the president. Same for Romney.
This post was edited on 8/12 11:15 AM by SPK145

 

[HALL85]

I don't see that with Gingrich. I just don't see where his support is going to come from.

Disagree on Obama being a winner. Jobs is the focus and he's an easy target for everyone. When you can put the econmony and unemployment squarely on the President it just keeps reinforcing the message regarding his failures. So you expect them to each to have a plan when the President has had almost three years and has yet to unvail his??? LOL

Government can't create jobs, but they can hinder the creation of them.

 

[SHUMA04]

Originally posted by HALL85:
Correction: The public is unhappy with Congress.

Like I said before, no one will care about a plan; they will only care about the number.

Exactly. If the Democrats want to cling to Congressional approval ratings as evidence of Obama's reelection chances, that's a fine by me - but that is the ultimate head-in-sand political strategy. Perhaps that's all we need to know about what most Dems really think about Obama's presidency.

In truth Obama has already run out of time. In the current macroeconomic environment, where the economy is stagnant at best, seeing a meaningful drop on a lagging indicator like employment is almost certainly not going to materialize before November 2012. In fact, with austerity measures likely to force a further drop in public sector employment, keeping the unemployment rate flat may be challenging.
This post was edited on 8/12 1:24 PM by SHUMA04

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by SHUMA04:

Originally posted by HALL85:
Correction: The public is unhappy with Congress.

Like I said before, no one will care about a plan; they will only care about the number.

Exactly. If the Democrats want to cling to Congressional approval ratings as evidence of Obama's reelection chances, that's a fine by me - but that is the ultimate head-in-sand political strategy. Perhaps that's all we need to know about what most Dems really think about Obama's presidency.

In truth Obama has already run out of time. In the current macroeconomic environment, where the economy is stagnant at best, seeing a meaningful drop on a lagging indicator like employment is almost certainly not going to materialize before November 2012. In fact, with austerity measures likely to force a further drop in public sector employment, keeping the unemployment rate flat may be challenging.
This post was edited on 8/12 1:24 PM by SHUMA04

Since I am the one who posted that, I think I should clarify.

This is not a political strategy, just a trend I noticed. Polling numbers for the democratic party stay flat yet the republican disapproval numbers fall by 10 points after the debt debates.

To me that coincides with the fact that the majority of Americans did not agree with the republican "cuts only" message and wanted to see a balanced approach like Obama was asking for. I haven't watched the republican debate yet, but I have heard that the entire panel was also not agreeing with over 60% of the country.

I am not even debating what is right and wrong, I am just looking at the political strategy and where the country is on certain issues. I just don't see how they win an election against Obama with that group of politicians (baring a disaster)

 

[HALL85]

It remains to be seen how each Rep candidate positions the ongoing discussions on reducing the deficit. Like we saw with the election of Obama, there was a segment of the population who saw him as a symbol of hope to get us through the financial crisis and that's what got him elected. If the economy and unemployment stay the same or worsen, that will be the determining factor and whether the Rep candidate is believable like OB was.

Add to the fact if Romney is the candidate, he wasn't part of any of the debt ceiling bickering, so he can't be pinned to the misbehavior of the President and Congress.

 

[SHUMA04]

Merge that's fair.

I guess where we differ is that I don't think one can read too much into the primaries at this stage. understandably at this stage the candidates will veer right. As the picture clears nextt summer you will see the platforms manifest themselves with greater moderation.

The key thing here is that barring a veritable economic miracle the jobs message will be far more credible coming from Romney or perry than Obama And on more general issues neither will be easy to pin to the congressional republicans particularly as the electorate zeroes in on the candidate individually in the advanced stages of the campaign.

I guess the really interesting thing will be what happens if perry wins and the Dems force the electorate into believing it's a choice between a sullied obama and a proxy for george w bush.