Unemployment poses danger for Obama

[coyotes_geek]

I don't think he has broad appeal.

Agreed. But then there isn't a Republican who does. At least not one that we know of today.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Obama is not going to have a problem unless the unemployment numbers remain high well into his 3rd year in office. Most people with an ounce of integrity knows that Obama is not the cause for the increase in unemployment numbers . His stimulus funds, whether you agree with the concept or not, have not been fully relased so to say it has failed is also intellectually dishonest. Now in the end this stimulus/spending bill may not work and could theoretically cause more damage than good but we won't know for a couple of years. So to state "It's working", or "It's a failure" at this point is not an honest assessment.

[JoeChalupa]

Agreed. But then there isn't a Republican who does. At least not one that we know of today.

I see Mitt making another run if the polls looks good. I think I saw that Huckabee is still popular. Gov. Pawlenty may run too I think.

[sam1617]

All true, but when you have a prez pushing deregulation, ala lax oversight on the lending industry, at the same time he is promoting activities that need to be heavily regulated, ala pusing the housing for all Americans program started in the late 70's, you can see that he was not innocent in the matter...

Yes, I would agree that the Executive branch plays a role in the economy, but to me, the only people we can truly control is ourselves, and making bad business decisions is something that the individual making the decision can control, thus the majority of blame for their mistake lies on them. Just because something gets deregulated doesn't mean that people should act irresponsibly. The buck doesn't stop with the President, while he may play a factor, the buck stops with the individual.

[JoeChalupa]

Obama is not going to have a problem unless the unemployment numbers remain high well into his 3rd year in office. Most people with an ounce of integrity knows that Obama is not the cause for the increase in unemployment numbers . His stimulus funds, whether you agree with the concept or not, have not been fully relased so to say it has failed is also intellectually dishonest. Now in the end this stimulus/spending bill may not work and could theoretically cause more damage than good but we won't know for a couple of years. So to state "It's working", or "It's a failure" at this point is not an honest assessment.

I think the deficit number is going to be THE attack strategy from the republicans although I don't think it will work and Obama will get a second term.

[sam1617]

I think the deficit number is going to be THE attack strategy from the republicans although I don't think it will work and Obama will get a second term.

If he does, hopefully conservatives can control Congress, that way we don't get one party unilaterally deciding the course of our nation, like what happened during Bush's tenure.

[jman3000]

Huckabee, Palin, and Newt are unelectable.

This is gonna sound re ed, but I think Bush is actually a pretty good choice for them... especially if he could somehow find a way to change his last name. His view points on things are more moderate and easier to stomach.

I have no problem voting for a moderate Republican come 2012.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Obama is not going to have a problem unless the unemployment numbers remain high well into his 3rd year in office. Most people with an ounce of integrity knows that Obama is not the cause for the increase in unemployment numbers . His stimulus funds, whether you agree with the concept or not, have not been fully relased so to say it has failed is also intellectually dishonest. Now in the end this stimulus/spending bill may not work and could theoretically cause more damage than good but we won't know for a couple of years. So to state "It's working", or "It's a failure" at this point is not an honest assessment.

if and when that time comes, whenever it's popular, if this thing fails i highly doubt you would put down your pom poms.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I don't think he has broad appeal.

It's easy to say that, but should he run, when he starts talking policy people are going to listen.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Obama is not going to have a problem unless the unemployment numbers remain high well into his 3rd year in office. Most people with an ounce of integrity knows that Obama is not the cause for the increase in unemployment numbers . His stimulus funds, whether you agree with the concept or not, have not been fully relased so to say it has failed is also intellectually dishonest. Now in the end this stimulus/spending bill may not work and could theoretically cause more damage than good but we won't know for a couple of years. So to state "It's working", or "It's a failure" at this point is not an honest assessment.

That's some good hash you're smoking.

Corporations continue to trim their payrolls due to what's going at the federal level with respect to banking and oversight. No one wants to get caught needing a handout and all the strings that the administration tie on to it.

Obama's auto bailout is going to put tens of thousands more on the streets due to shuttered dealerships and auto plants, but that's not his fault, when he's just paying back the unions for their vote?

And just wait... with the decision to push through the structured bailout and piss on nearly 200 years of contractual law with respect to secured debt holders (i.e., Obama taking care of the unsecure ones - union - first ahead of secure ones), it's going to cost more for any union affiliated business/industry to do business because that risk of getting hosed by an administration with no respect for contractual law is going to be priced into any future financing offered.

And as a result, you're going to see more businesses go under when they can't find financing. Eh, Team Obama will probably bail their asses out too, but it will be more picking winners and losers by the admin. and more job losses that go along with it.

But I'm sure we'll still be hearing about jobs 'saved or created', even as the unemployment rate continues to climb

[George Gervin's Afro]

Corporations continue to trim their payrolls due to what's going at the federal level with respect to banking and oversight. No one wants to get caught needing a handout and all the strings that the administration tie on to it.

Is this the only reason they are trimming back their payrolls? or could it be that the economy is suffering? Would you provide some do etation to that notes this is the reason why they (whomever your talking about) taking their respective actions?

Obama's auto bailout is going to put tens of thousands more on the streets due to shuttered dealerships and auto plants, but that's not his fault, when he's just paying back the unions for their vote?

Or maybe jumping in to save a complete meltdown so that other industries ,such as auto parts manufacturers, don't cave as well? Using your logic he should have let GM fail which would have put 50,000, 60,000 people out of work? Throw in the trickle effect of such a failure which would have surely caused many more people to lose their jobs. So in effect he made the decision to eliminate 10,000 jobs in order to save 40,000 or 50,000. He saved jobs! Of course your so locked into your political talking points this move was to shore up votes..

And just wait... with the decision to push through the structured bailout and piss on nearly 200 years of contractual law with respect to secured debt holders (i.e., Obama taking care of the unsecure ones - union - first ahead of secure ones), it's going to cost more for any union affiliated business/industry to do business because that risk of getting hosed by an administration with no respect for contractual law is going to be priced into any future financing offered.

Didn't the conservative leaning Supreme Court just disagree with you?

And as a result, you're going to see more businesses go under when they can't find financing. Eh, Team Obama will probably bail their asses out too, but it will be more picking winners and losers by the admin. and more job losses that go along with it.

So are you blaimg Obama for the lack of financing now? You think the administration will pick winners and losers (whatever that means)? can you prove that? or is this just an opinion of a pissed off conservative who does nothing but about Obama?

But I'm sure we'll still be hearing about jobs 'saved or created', even as the unemployment rate continues to climb

When the unemployment rate starts to come down( it will) I suppose you are not going to give Obama any credit, correct? So in essence you blame him for the high rate and when it goes up you will find many other reasons other than Obama as to why it is recovering?

Do you have any intellectual integrity?

[Winehole23]

This is gonna sound re ed, but I think Bush is actually a pretty good choice for them... especially if he could somehow find a way to change his last name. His view points on things are more moderate and easier to stomach.

I have no problem voting for a moderate Republican come 2012.

I thought something similar about GWB in 2000. Boy was I wrong.

[coyotes_geek]

Obama's auto bailout is going to put tens of thousands more on the streets due to shuttered dealerships and auto plants, but that's not his fault, when he's just paying back the unions for their vote?

I agree with you the bailouts suck, but it's not like if Obama hadn't bailed out GM & Chrysler that those dealership jobs would have been saved. Can't put those jobs on him. Those jobs were going to be lost regardless.

[coyotes_geek]

I thought something similar about GWB in 2000. Boy was I wrong.

+1

[jman3000]

I thought something similar about GWB in 2000. Boy was I wrong.

Considering I wasn't old enough to vote during the 2000 election I don't remember that. I just remember I wanted him to win because he was from Texas. That's about as far as that went.

I know Bush the youngest has been criticized by his own party. Did Bush 43 have that same problem coming up?

I'd much rather have a fiscal conservative in the WH than Obama, but a lot of the names they're throwing around aren't going to cut it.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I agree with you the bailouts suck, but it's not like if Obama hadn't bailed out GM & Chrysler that those dealership jobs would have been saved. Can't put those jobs on him. Those jobs were going to be lost regardless.

Not necessarily. If they would have been allowed to go into bankruptcy, the company could have restructured on its own. I doubt it would have closed so many dealerships, and it would have had the opportunity to renegotiate its labor contracts so guys weren't getting paid $60K a year for putting a couple of lug nuts on a tire.

[jman3000]

Maybe it's just that I'm from Texas and haven't been raised with unions being prominent... but I can't understand why unions are needed now other than exploiting the companies.

I understand how they came to be... workers were being exploited. It's just that nowadays it's in the best interest of company to treat their workers well. Mass media has forced that.

It's kind of like affirmative action. It was needed in the infancy of a movement, but as time went on, society (for the most part) outgrew the policy.
(there are some places where that isn't the case though)

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Is this the only reason they are trimming back their payrolls? or could it be that the economy is suffering? Would you provide some do etation to that notes this is the reason why they (whomever your talking about) taking their respective actions?

I'm in middle management at my company. I also know several other folks in mid to high management at various companies here in Dallas (friends, family, etc.). It's more word of mouth than anything, but it's happening. Sorry I don't have a press release from Robert Gibbs to verify this is happening.

Or maybe jumping in to save a complete meltdown so that other industries ,such as auto parts manufacturers, don't cave as well? Using your logic he should have let GM fail which would have put 50,000, 60,000 people out of work? Throw in the trickle effect of such a failure which would have surely caused many more people to lose their jobs. So in effect he made the decision to eliminate 10,000 jobs in order to save 40,000 or 50,000. He saved jobs! Of course your so locked into your political talking points this move was to shore up votes..

When the airline companies went into bankruptcy several years ago, did everyone they employ end up out on the street? Nope, they reworked their contracts, re-worked their debt, and moved on.

Of course you're so locked into your political talking points the only way a company like GM or Chrysler can survive is to have the government prop them up. And spare me the condescension, everyone can see what happened in Detroit was to the benefit of the UAW, which contributed significantly to Team Obama. Don't be so ing naive.

So are you blaimg Obama for the lack of financing now? You think the administration will pick winners and losers (whatever that means)? can you prove that? or is this just an opinion of a pissed off conservative who does nothing but about Obama?

It's already picking winners and losers. It made senior debtholders at GM and Chrysler the losers, while making the unions the winners. , wake up. It's in the damn papers. I'm sorry, I guess you have your head too far up Obama's ass to read a ing newspaper.

When the unemployment rate starts to come down( it will) I suppose you are not going to give Obama any credit, correct? So in essence you blame him for the high rate and when it goes up you will find many other reasons other than Obama as to why it is recovering?

Unemployment won't race back down. It might slowly trickle back down. If you can prove it's because of any Obama policy, I will give him credit. But to pretend the stimulus package is somehow the end all cure all is hilarious. But I expect that from Obama's sheeple.

Do you have any intellectual integrity?

Yep, feel pretty good about that actually. Are you capable of having an intelligent discussion without labeling anyone who criticizes Obama some pissed off conservative? That gets old in a hurry, and shows you aren't capable of holding an intelligent conversation. I'd have to say you're the one lacking intellectual integrity.

It's funny that you challenge my intellectual integrity. I don't see you questioning Obama's bull statistics about jobs 'saved or created'. Talk about intellectual dishonesty, but you Obamaniacs lap it up. It's sad to watch really.

[Trainwreck2100]

Maybe it's just that I'm from Texas and haven't been raised with unions being prominent... but I can't understand why unions are needed now other than exploiting the companies.

I understand how they came to be... workers were being exploited. It's just that nowadays it's in the best interest of company to treat their workers well. Mass media has forced that.

I take it you don't know many people that work for Wal Mart.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Didn't the conservative leaning Supreme Court just disagree with you?

I suspect we'll get to see what they really think with the GM bankruptcy. Some of its bondholders are planning to actually file a court case, as opposed to the pe ion by the pension funds, etc. that was shot down by Chrysler.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Maybe it's just that I'm from Texas and haven't been raised with unions being prominent... but I can't understand why unions are needed now other than exploiting the companies.

I understand how they came to be... workers were being exploited. It's just that nowadays it's in the best interest of company to treat their workers well. Mass media has forced that.

It's kind of like affirmative action. It was needed in the infancy of a movement, but as time went on, society (for the most part) outgrew the policy.
(there are some places where that isn't the case though)

I'll give you a good example of union work at its finest.

We have a client in another state that is a union shop. This is government workers too. Anyway, we are implementing new software for them. The project, which would normally take about a year to implement fully, is taking three.

Why? Because they show up for training, sit there for 2-3 hours, then say they don't feel like training any more and call it a day. They still get to punch eight hours on their time card and our client can't do anything because it's a union shop and they all stand together. So it's costing the taxpayers for this en y three times as much money for this project as we have to be out there three times as long.

But hey, they're union right? everyone else.

[Winehole23]

I don't see you questioning Obama's bull statistics about jobs 'saved or created'. Talk about intellectual dishonesty, but you Obamaniacs lap it up. It's sad to watch really.

Discussed here, starting at #58: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=mankiw&page=2

[jman3000]

I take it you don't know many people that work for Wal Mart.

The only people I know that work at Wal Mart are in their high teens - low 20's. They really don't have anything to complain about other than the fact they work at a hole like Wal Mart.

I'm going to pretend to know what older people at Wal Mart feel because I don't know any. I'd like to know what you think a person putting a box on a shelf, or broom an aisle deserve to be paid. Seriously.

and I know there are other variables at play like health care, but I don't know/understand the situation so I'm not gonna make assumptions.

[LnGrrrR]

Maybe it's just that I'm from Texas and haven't been raised with unions being prominent... but I can't understand why unions are needed now other than exploiting the companies.

I understand how they came to be... workers were being exploited. It's just that nowadays it's in the best interest of company to treat their workers well. Mass media has forced that.

It's kind of like affirmative action. It was needed in the infancy of a movement, but as time went on, society (for the most part) outgrew the policy.
(there are some places where that isn't the case though)

I don't see anything wrong with a group of workers banding together to exploit a company.

Granted, I don't know all the legalities of unions, but can't businesses hire scabs if the union guys walk?

[jman3000]

I'll give you a good example of union work at its finest.

We have a client in another state that is a union shop. This is government workers too. Anyway, we are implementing new software for them. The project, which would normally take about a year to implement fully, is taking three.

Why? Because they show up for training, sit there for 2-3 hours, then say they don't feel like training any more and call it a day. They still get to punch eight hours on their time card and our client can't do anything because it's a union shop and they all stand together. So it's costing the taxpayers for this en y three times as much money for this project as we have to be out there three times as long.

But hey, they're union right? everyone else.

My father said he was fired from CPS when he was in his early 20's because he worked too fast/efficiently at repairing electricity lines and the other guys only wanted him to meet the bare minimum requirements. Something along the lines of they had a set amount of time to do a set amount of repairs and they'd want to milk it the length of the deadline in order to get more money. If he had continued to work they would have come in under budget and ahead of time.

what a joke.