unemployment figures a freaking joke...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

The biggest employment gains will be realized in lifting the moratorium on Gulf Drilling and stopping the assault on coal.

---

Fucking dolt.

Coal is being killed by the success of gas drilling, and the plummeting price of natural gas.

Even if you got rid of all the requirements for pollution controls that makes coal power plants expensive, the fuel will still end up being the kicker, because THAT is the largest compenent of the NPV costs for new power plants.

Unless you want to pick winners and losers..


Are coal jobs worth more than natural gas jobs? Is that what you are saying?

You want government intervention in the market to save the coal jobs over the natural gas jobs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Bla bla bla Look at how bad the republicans are, and everything is their fault... bla bla bla democrats never are wrong bla bla bla my ideology is infallible bla bla bla

---

Pot meet Kettle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101A

Pot meet Kettle

---

Ouch.

I am, in constrast to hackjobs like Yoni, more than willing and able to point out the flaws in the Democratic party, and when Democrats fuck up.

If you would like, hell, I'll even find one or two things and start threads on them.

I might be a bit pissed off, and have a definite viewpoint, but please don't insult me like that.

Yonivore is 100% hack all the time, every time, on every issue. Predictable and dishonest and misleading if he thinks he can make his case by doing so and get away with it.

Do you really think I have so little disregard for the truth as to be as bad as Yonivore?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101A

None of them; but neither do Obama's

Thanks, presumably, to Obama - so why do you focus so much attention on the Republican's pandering to that group?

I haven't heard any; and what Obama and co. has tried has failed.

Not just Yoni; just about ALL who have chosen a side. If OUR guy wins things will get better; if THEIR guy wins things will be the WORST EVER; END OF AMERICA AS WE KNOWWWWW IT!!!!! (we've all seen, and many believe, this rhetoric spewing from both sides - several here certainly believe that about the "other" side; I could name names, but you all know who you are)

In the end; nothing changes; two sides of the same coin, after all. It, literally, doesn't matter which of the two politicians running for president win. Choose your side; argue vehemently for it, and against the other; YOU are part of the problem (a useful idiot), not the solution.

---

Meh, it won't be the end of the world if Romney gets elected.

We will muddle through regardless of how incompetant his administration will be, just as we muddled through Obama's and Bush's.

There have been a couple of threads here about just how undeducated about economics both ends of the spectrum can be when you get some hot button issue.

I think the real delusion is the mindless cynicism that tries to equate both sides as equal somehow.

Republicans are driving out moderates, and actively punishing them.

Democrats aren't, that I am yet aware of.

Fell free to provide examples of the Democrats driving as hard to the left as the Republicans are driving to the right, if you want to support your "no difference" thesis.

I suppose that nominating John McCain and Mitt Romney in consecutive Presidential elections could be seen as "driving to the right" from the perspective of a treasonous fucking communist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Republicans are driving out moderates, and actively punishing them.

Democrats aren't, that I am yet aware of.

---

Did you miss the first 2 years of the Obama administration? Did you miss the results of the 2010 election?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homeland Security

I suppose that nominating John McCain and Mitt Romney in consecutive Presidential elections could be seen as "driving to the right" from the perspective of a treasonous fucking communist.

---

I would not consider their nominations to be "driving to the right".

Swing and miss, jackboot. Truncheon 101 is thataway, your backswing needs work....>>>>>>>

I would consider the unseating of a lot of establishment Republicans by tea party zealots to be driving to the right, as well as some of the more strident bullshit that seems to be seeing the light of day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

Did you miss the first 2 years of the Obama administration? Did you miss the results of the 2010 election?

---

No, I did not.

What specifically are you referring to?

It's okay guys because Obama is president.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

No, I did not.

What specifically are you referring to?

---

Your claim that dems aren't driving out moderates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

I would not consider their nominations to be "driving to the right".

Swing and miss, jackboot. Truncheon 101 is thataway, your backswing needs work....>>>>>>>

I would consider the unseating of a lot of establishment Republicans by tea party zealots to be driving to the right, as well as some of the more strident bullshit that seems to be seeing the light of day.

---

Removing establishment politicians can be a good thing. We have had about 15-20 years of suck. Maybe it is time for new blood from both parties?

I get the whole tea party politicians are crazy. But for the most part, the actual crazy ones don't seem to win. For example, Ted Cruz was the "Tea Party" candidate. If you look at Dewherst and Cruz with any honesty at all, they are the identical candidate. That is why people didn't rush out and vote for Dewherst. Its voting for the same person.

The real crazy people like Christine O'Donnell and Sarah Palin don't win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Time to make a change.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51OFI0b4vqL.jpg

I'm Yonivore and I approved this message.

---

More like America's "GO BACK TO 2008 TEAM"...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homeland Security

I suppose that nominating John McCain and Mitt Romney in consecutive Presidential elections could be seen as "driving to the right" from the perspective of a treasonous fucking communist.

---

:lol

hooohummm...

Since President Obama's economic policies ended the George W. Bush gifted Great Recession, halted staggering monthly job losses that approached 800,000, and returned the nation to positive job growth in record time he has enjoyed a job creation rate that exceeds the 1st term job creation record of ANY Republican President in history.

Below is a table which shows job creation by President for ALL terms served. Reagan's record in his first term in office was 109,000 per month. Reagan inherited stellar job creation from President Carter and cut it in nearly in half. President Obama inherited the deepest drop in job loss since the Great Depression and has since September of 2010 outperformed every Republican on record.

When examining the record of job creation we must look where President Obama started out to fully understand how far he has taken us as a nation down the road to recovery.

Democratic Record:
Truman +86,500
Kennedy +100,000
Johnson +191,666
Carter +216,666
Clinton +241,666 ----------------------
+174,192 Jobs gained per month

Republican Record:
Eisenhower +36,458
Nixon +117,708
Reagan +167,708
G. H. Bush +52,000
G. W. Bush +19,895
-----------------
+78,754 Jobs gained per month



read full article: http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com...-creation.html

nothing to see here folks, move along...

States of Depression

Quote:

---

One way to dramatize just how severe our de facto austerity has been is to compare government employment and spending during the Obama-era economic expansion, which began in June 2009, with their tracks during the Reagan-era expansion, which began in November 1982.

Start with government employment (which is mainly at the state and local level, with about half the jobs in education). By this stage in the Reagan recovery, government employment had risen by 3.1 percent; this time around, it’s down by 2.7 percent.

Next, look at government purchases of goods and services (as distinct from transfers to individuals, like unemployment benefits). Adjusted for inflation, by this stage of the Reagan recovery, such purchases had risen by 11.6 percent; this time, they’re down by 2.6 percent.

And the gap persists even when you do include transfers, some of which have stayed high precisely because unemployment is still so high. Adjusted for inflation, Reagan-era spending rose 10.2 percent in the first 10 quarters of recovery, Obama-era spending only 2.6 percent.

Why did government spending rise so much under Reagan, with his small-government rhetoric, while shrinking under the president so many Republicans insist is a secret socialist? In Reagan’s case, it’s partly about the arms race, but mainly about state and local governments doing what they are supposed to do: educate a growing population of children, invest in infrastructure for a growing economy.

Under President Obama, however, the dire fiscal condition of state and local governments — the result of a sustained slump, which in turn was caused largely by that private debt explosion before 2008 — has led to forced spending cuts. The fiscal straits of lower-level governments could and should have been alleviated by aid from Washington, which remains able to borrow at incredibly low interest rates. But this aid was never provided on a remotely adequate scale.

This policy malpractice is doing double damage to America. On one side, it’s helping lose the future — because that’s what happens when you neglect education and public investment. At the same time, it’s hurting us right now, by helping keep growth low and unemployment high.

We’re talking big numbers here. If government employment under Mr. Obama had grown at Reagan-era rates, 1.3 million more Americans would be working as schoolteachers, firefighters, police officers, etc., than are currently employed in such jobs.

And once you take the effects of public spending on private employment into account, a rough estimate is that the unemployment rate would be 1.5 percentage points lower than it is, or below 7 percent — significantly better than the Reagan economy at this stage.

One implication of this comparison is that conservatives who love to compare Reagan’s record with Mr. Obama’s should think twice. Aside from the fact that recoveries from financial crises are almost always slower than ordinary recoveries, in reality Reagan was much more Keynesian than Mr. Obama, faced with an obstructionist G.O.P., has ever managed to be.

More important, however, there is now an easy answer to anyone asking how we can accelerate our economic recovery. By all means, let’s talk about visionary ideas; but we can take a big step toward full employment just by using the federal government’s low borrowing costs to help state and local governments rehire the schoolteachers and police officers they laid off, while restarting the road repair and improvement projects they canceled or put on hold.

---

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/op...sion.html?_r=1

rhetoric...

1). Public sector (government) employment increased under Bush by just over 4%, and has declined under President Obama by approx. 3%.

2). Private sector employment under Bush declined by approx. 1% over 4 years. Yet in just 2.5 years since the Great Recession bottomed out after President Obama's economic policies took hold have increased by approx. 4%.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6It2jD8hJ7...ersusObama.jpg


This graph again documents the typical historical record of comparing Republican Economic results against Democratic economic results. Republicans overspend and under perform. As I've stated repeatedly before only two things grow when Republican economic principles are in place, namely unemployment and the national debt. A snapshot look at this comparison shows:

Willard Romney has stated he wants to re-implement the Bush economic policies, the same policies that greased the skids for the 2nd greatest economic decline in American history. Romney wants bring his MBA education and experience to shape the American economy. We have had two other Presidents with such experience and education, Herbert Hoover and George W. Bush. How'd that work out?

http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/job-growth.html

Republicans want to run the economy into the ground with spreading Democracy overseas and building 1 billion dollar embassies while Democrats want to run the economy into the ground with giving women free abortions, free babies, free birth control, free tampons, and giving any American that is a part of a minority group everything from cradle to grave. That pretty much sums it up.

the key number in public sector losses is 300K teachers fired, mostly fired in Repug states, which is nothing but All Politics, All The Time (education be damned).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacob1983

Republicans want to run the economy into the ground with spreading Democracy overseas and building 1 billion dollar embassies while Democrats want to run the economy into the ground with giving women free abortions, free babies, free birth control, free tampons, and giving any American that is a part of a minority group everything from cradle to grave. That pretty much sums it up.

---

Pretty simple, but wrong.

Repugs want to protect and enrich the 1% and UCA.

I'm not sure what the Dems want to do, but whatever, the Repugs will stop them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edward

The Real Estate market is turning around for the first time in years and jobs in the area are growing. Whatever Obama has done to stimulate that industry, it's a lot better than what Bush did seeing that Bush's policies led to the biggest Real Estate crash ever.

:lol "Drill Baby, Drill!" is still what Republicans think will fix this economy

---

shit just bounces back after hitting the ground and it has nothing to do with whatever obama did imho. the real estate bubble had existed since long before bush took office and it just happened to blow out under bush's administration, which had just as little to do with bush's fault as the 9/11 attack tbh

"the real estate bubble had existed since long before bush took office"

LONG before?

You Lie, and nearly all of the bubbles, housing and credit, happened on Repug watch.

Dubya even shut down Spitzer and 19 states that tried to get predatory lending, a huge factor in the buble, stopped.

http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/

I still don't get why everyone is so obsessed with "jobs". It's a wrong metric anyway.

Half Of America’s Unemployed Workers Are Collecting No Unemployment Benefits


http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/...oyment0912.png

While it is natural to assume that most unemployed workers are eligible for UI benefits, at most, only two‐thirds of all unemployed workers received state or federal UI benefits at any time during the economic downturn. Today, less than half the nation’s 12.8 million unemployed workers receive some form of UI. Approximately 3.2 million collect state UI benefits, covering the first 26 weeks of unemployment, while an additional 2.3 million job seekers receive federal UI under the EUC08 program.

This is occurring because federal benefits phase out as states’ jobless numbers decline. Because states are seeing their jobs numbers improve — to levels that are by no means adequate — federal benefits are phasing out. That leaves workers with only 26 weeks of state benefits to use, which leaves them 13 weeks shy of the average duration of unemployment.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...efits-half-no/

Facts show Democrats are job creators

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76338.html

Private Jobs Increase More With Democrats in White House

http://www.bloomberg.com/image/i6Z8zEz5YBL0.jpg

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...ite-house.html

I'm doing pretty good though.