• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2011: Of Weiners, Boehners, Santorum, and Teabags

Status
Not open for further replies.
ToxicAdam said:
Did Al Gore forget that he had a historic opportunity to join this administration and fundamentally change climate policy in this country?
Was he really given such an opportunity? Or are you just making that up?

No job offer during Obama-Gore meeting.

Steven Chu was a much better choice. His nobel prize was in science.


When it came time to do the real work for what he believes in, he was in his private jet, living his rock star life while begging for happy-ending massages.
Can you be a bit more petty?

ToxicAdam said:
A man who will tell you the world needs population control, but has four children himself.
But when did he have his eco-conversion? Long after having children. Perhaps he should have invented a time machine like he invented the internet so he could go back in time and prevent them. Or should he just kill them?

The guy who turned on Bill Clinton during the 2000 election

Do you recall a little scandal known as 'Monica Lewinsky' that required that?

What a massive fraud.
Gore is just a politician and now an advocate. He does go a bit over-board (such as the get rid of carbon-based electricity in 10 years). But your bashing of him is more comical than Al Gore himself.

When he doesn't make money on Climate change things then you'll bash him as a dirty commie hippie who wants us all to be poor. When he makes money on climate change actions then you'll bash him as a greedy fraud. So your arguments in that area are pretty fucking hollow . . . he can't win no matter what he does in your eyes.
 
mckmas8808 said:
So is she saying we should stay longer than what Obama wants to? Because it surely reads that way. But the question is why is she saying or thinking that?
We have to be like Charlie Sheen. Winning. Whatever that means.
 

Kosmo

Banned
Dr. Pangloss said:
Pension plans are really a minor problem when it comes to budgets. In fact, social security is probably the best run federal program to date. Even Republicans did not bother to mess with it in their budget. It's only during down turns that pensions become a problem due to less tax revenue (resources). But I believe this problem is out weight by the benefits they provide in their stable income for earners even during down turns. If this country solved the growth in health costs, and the drag energy has on the economy, then more resources could be dictated to pension plans. Problem solved.

Going to pretend I didn't read that.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
Invisible_Insane said:
Exceptionally stupid, though at least it's part of an international release, making it slightly less stupid. And the timing is weird as fuck.

So, Cantor walked away from the Biden deficit talks over taxes, demanding that Obama and Boehner meet to settle it. And by settle it, he means Boehner can tell Obama they'd rather default than raise taxes on the wealthy.

Obama will cave, but I'm going to hold onto a glimmer of hope, for now, that something decent might emerge. Dems are holding the line at no benefit cuts to Medicare, pushing for direct price negotiations in Medicare Part D instead. Which is much more than I expected a this point. (That hope will be crushed, but I'm a masochist like that.)
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
Kosmo said:
Going to pretend I didn't read that.
Even considering the abnormal relative sizes of the baby boomer population and gens x/y that put a much bigger strain on the system than traditionally normal population differences across generations, if congress hadn't raided the social security fund to pay for other stuff without having to raise taxes, social seucrity would be basically solvent right now. Like, the present value of the long term debt would be $50B in the most pessimistic forecast
 
mckmas8808 said:
You this isn't a bad idea at all. Why do you think it's stupid as fuck?
What does it accomplish?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/business/24oil.html?_r=1&hp

It is unclear how much more prices could come down, if at all, with the release of the reserve oil, which is not a large amount given worldwide consumption levels.

One person with knowledge of the decision said it appeared to be driven by several factors: the United States political calendar; the need to bring down prices for advanced economies; the expected increase in demand as the summer vacation season gets under way; and frustration at the failure by OPEC to raise production.

“You don’t get elected with gas at $4 a gallon,” he said. “If you were looking solely at fundamentals, the I.E.A. would have moved after the Libyan crude came off the market.” He added: “It looks like it’s about price management, but you will never hear that from the I.E.A.”

Stupid as fuck.
 
Kosmo said:
Going to pretend I didn't read that.
Here is a good article on the problem by Ezra Klein: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/eight-facts-and-three-thoughts-about-social-security/2011/05/09/AFJTVUjG_blog.html

Eight facts and three thoughts about Social Security

1) Over the next 75 years, Social Security’s shortfall is equal to about 0.7 percent of GDP.

4) Without Social Security, 45 percent of seniors would be under the poverty line. With Social Security, 10 percent of seniors are under the poverty line.

5) People can start receiving Social Security benefits at age 62. But the longer they wait, up until age 70, the larger their checks. Waiting to 66 means checks that are 33 percent larger. Waiting to 70 means checks that are 76 percent larger. But most people start claiming benefits at 62, and 95 percent start by 66.

6) Raising the retirement age by one year amounts to roughly a 6.66 percent cut in benefits.

7) In 1935, a white male at age 60 could expect to live to 75. Today, a white male at age 60 can expect to live to 80.

8) In 1972, a 60-year-old male worker in the bottom half of the income distribution had a life expectancy of 78 years. Today, it’s around 80 years. Male workers in the top half of the income distribution, by contrast, have gone from 79 years to 85 years.

The conclusions I draw from these numbers are:

1) Social Security’s 75-year shortfall is manageable. In fact, it’d be almost completely erased by applying the payroll tax to income over $106,000.

2) Most opinion elites — Simpson being one good example, and the U.S. Senate being another — show a very strong preference for working as long as possible. Most Americans show a very strong preference for retiring as early as possible. Elites who enjoy their jobs need to be very careful about generalizing their experience to people who don’t enjoy their jobs. More bluntly: Raising the retirement age is the worst of all possible options for reforming Social Security. It’s not only regressive, but it also falls most heavily on those with the worst jobs. Means-testing would be much better.

3) Social Security is fairly stingy and getting stingier. We also know most 401(k)s are underfunded, and the same goes for many defined-benefit pension systems, both public and private. We need to be very careful not to “solve” the Social Security problem by worsening a broad retirement-security problem, and that requires approaching Social Security as part of our retirement-security infrastructure rather than simply as a budgetary question. Here are some ideas on how to do that.

Here is a further article talking about reform: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-pro-social-security-case-for-social-security-reform/2011/03/10/AF9EuNuB_blog.html He goes into one Democrat plan which involves an increase on the payroll tax, but also offers a plan like a 401 (k). Good reads on the issue.
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
PantherLotus said:
The better question is what Kosmo thinks the best run government agency/program/anything actually is? Name anything, I dare ya.
The best run government is no government, dur
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Invisible_Insane said:


The timing is weird but the action isn't stupid. It's only 30 Billion barrels, so it's not like it's killing our reserves that we've saved up. And another 30 billion from overseas again isn't alot either.

But one thing that this will do is change the psychology of the world oil market. If traders know that extra oil will be put on the market if "NEED" be, then they'll be less like to be scared shitless when places like Libya go to shit.

This really should have been done when the Libya/NATO war started.
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
I can imagine a scenario where opening the strategic reserve at the beginning of summer is a good idea, or at least strategically sound. Perhaps they have reason to believe prices will drop even further? Perhaps they're (correctly) offsetting the 4th-of-July hike?

I dunno, I don't think this is the disaster you guys think it is. But I'll listen to the evidence.
 
mckmas8808 said:
The timing is weird but the action isn't stupid. It's only 30 Billion barrels, so it's not like it's killing our reserves that we've saved up. And another 30 billion from overseas again isn't alot either.

But one thing that this will do is change the psychology of the world oil market. If traders know that extra oil will be put on the market if "NEED" be, then they'll be less like to be scared shitless when places like Libya go to shit.

This really should have been done when the Libya/NATO war started.
But there is no NEED. More importantly, Libya going to shit is almost completely irrelevant. When the intervention started, Saudi Arabia pledged to step up production to cover any of the loss from Libya, which is something that's not particularly difficult for them to do. Gas prices have been coming down for the last several weeks. This action is absolutely unnecessary.


PantherLotus said:
I can imagine a scenario where opening the strategic reserve at the beginning of summer is a good idea, or at least strategically sound. Perhaps they have reason to believe prices will drop even further? Perhaps they're (correctly) offsetting the 4th-of-July hike?

I dunno, I don't think this is the disaster you guys think it is. But I'll listen to the evidence.
How is it a good strategic decision to make it less expensive for people to go on vacation?
 

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
mckmas8808 said:
The timing is weird but the action isn't stupid. It's only 30 Billion barrels, so it's not like it's killing our reserves that we've saved up. And another 30 billion from overseas again isn't alot either.

But one thing that this will do is change the psychology of the world oil market. If traders know that extra oil will be put on the market if "NEED" be, then they'll be less like to be scared shitless when places like Libya go to shit.

This really should have been done when the Libya/NATO war started.

million barrels. 30 billions barrels would be AWESOME
 
mckmas8808 said:
The timing is weird but the action isn't stupid. It's only 30 Billion barrels, so it's not like it's killing our reserves that we've saved up. And another 30 billion from overseas again isn't alot either.

But one thing that this will do is change the psychology of the world oil market. If traders know that extra oil will be put on the market if "NEED" be, then they'll be less like to be scared shitless when places like Libya go to shit.

This really should have been done when the Libya/NATO war started.

The markets already know the US has nearly 800 million barrels of reserves, they didn't need any reassuring on this point.

Why do it at the start of Libya? The general, laughable consensus was that the conflict would be over after a few weeks; thus there would be no point in releasing emergency supply for a non-emergency.

And the same applies now, only political motivations are at play.
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
Invisible_Insane said:
How is it a good strategic decision to make it less expensive for people to go on vacation?

Really? The over-arching strategy is obvious: lube the economy by helping to to stabilize global oil markets. The tactics are sound -- target threats to stability in Libya, Egypt (via first rights through Suez), Iraq, et al., release some number of barrels to world/domestic markets to lower prices and further isolate questionable OPEC constraints, etc.

On its face, though, I question whether you really thought about your own question. This economy is so fucking close to a double dip, and gas prices are pushing us closer and closer. It doesn't particularly matter whether they're already falling. This might push them further down.

It's one of the sadder jokes remaining from the post-9/11 world, but going out and buying shit really is a good response. Giving people incentive to do so while also providing benefit across a range of issues seems obvious.

I could be wrong -- I'm just wondering why it's a TERRIBLE FUCKING DECISION.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Invisible_Insane said:
How is it a good strategic decision to make it less expensive for people to go on vacation?

Dude you aren't honestly asking this are you? There's an obvious answer to that. The more money people spend on vacation, the better the economy does.

And that will also make people happier and perhaps it slightly changes the political numbers.


AlteredBeast said:
million barrels. 30 billions barrels would be AWESOME

lol. Thanks for the correction.
 

besada

Banned
PantherLotus said:
I can imagine a scenario where opening the strategic reserve at the beginning of summer is a good idea, or at least strategically sound. Perhaps they have reason to believe prices will drop even further? Perhaps they're (correctly) offsetting the 4th-of-July hike?

I dunno, I don't think this is the disaster you guys think it is. But I'll listen to the evidence.

It's not any sort of disaster. The IEA requested a release to make up for Libya's lack of production, not because they thought there was going to be a major shortfall, but because they believed the minor shortfall would act as a drag on the economy during the summer months. They normally only do this when the loss to production is around 7%, but plenty of people in the IEA think you see negative effects before that threshold is reached, so they're goosing it a little.

We're going to kick out 30 million, from a stock in excess of 720 million, which is within the actual guidelines for the SPR. At best, the world wide release of 60 million barrels is going to smooth things out a little.
 
Invisible_Insane said:
I don't understand it. Gas prices have actually come down in the last couple of weeks. We're going to open the Strategic Reserve so people can drive the fuck around for the summer?

This is the pinnacle of opportunistic idiocy.
You'd think it was 2012 or something!
 
PantherLotus said:
Really? The over-arching strategy is obvious: lube the economy by helping to to stabilize global oil markets. The tactics are sound -- target threats to stability in Libya, Egypt (via first rights through Suez), Iraq, et al., release some number of barrels to world/domestic markets to lower prices and further isolate questionable OPEC constraints, etc.

On its face, though, I question whether you really thought about your own question. This economy is so fucking close to a double dip, and gas prices are pushing us closer and closer. It doesn't particularly matter whether they're already falling. This might push them further down.

It's one of the sadder jokes remaining from the post-9/11 world, but going out and buying shit really is a good response. Giving people incentive to do so while also providing benefit across a range of issues seems obvious.

I could be wrong -- I'm just wondering why it's a TERRIBLE FUCKING DECISION.


mckmas8808 said:
Dude you aren't honestly asking this are you? There's an obvious answer to that. The more money people spend on vacation, the better the economy does.

And that will also make people happier and perhaps it slightly changes the political numbers.
I think I've made it clear that I'm not saying it's a TERRIBLE FUCKING DECISION. Just that it's a stupid one. There isn't any good reason to believe that this is going to produce any significant drop in oil prices--to quote the analyst from the NYT article, it's not at all connected to the market fundamentals. It's simply not consistent with reality to assert that the situation in Libya is having a dramatic impact on the stability of the global oil market.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Invisible_Insane said:
I think I've made it clear that I'm not saying it's a TERRIBLE FUCKING DECISION. Just that it's a stupid one. There isn't any good reason to believe that this is going to produce any significant drop in oil prices--to quote the analyst from the NYT article, it's not at all connected to the market fundamentals. It's simply not consistent with reality to assert that the situation in Libya is having a dramatic impact on the stability of the global oil market.


Dude the oil market is not consistent with reality, so you have to play the stupid game. Oil prices shot up when the Libya crap started and it wasn't like Libya is a huge player in world oil supply. The whole market is out of wack.
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
Turning to my favorite part of politics: POLITICS!

Freaking love this analysis:

T-Paw = He-Man
Josh Marshall | June 22, 2011, 10:04PM

A few moments ago, I saw some tweets from MSNBC's Chuck Todd noting that while most politicos' responses to the Obama speech have been somewhat muted and hedged (on both sides of the aisle) the big stand out was former Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R), who responded with a MacArthuresque paean to victory. Pawlenty told Bill O'Reilly: "I thought his speech tonight was deeply concerning. Look how he phrased the outcome of this war. He said we need to end the war 'responsibly.' When America goes to war, America needs to win."

The merits of the remarks are one thing. What it tells us about the GOP presidential race is quite another.

This is turning into a good illustration of a recurring pattern, especially in presidential politics. Pawlenty's big whiff in the New Hampshire debate wasn't so damaging because of the thing itself, though it was plenty bad. The real problem was the on-going damage he shot that night like an arrow into the future. Saddled with the image of a cowardly or cowering figure, he now feels compelled to react to most every new situation with the most he-manish, over-the-top or high-noon sort of answer. But rather than erase that impression, it embeds it because it all comes off forced if not farcical, focusing our attention on his shortcoming rather than convincing anyone it doesn't exist.

Now he's stuck in a feedback loop like the one Al Gore got into back in 1999/2000. Rightly or wrongly, once critics pegged Gore as the guy who was 'stiff' and unlikeable, he spent the next year oscillating between 'Al Gore's so stiff jokes' and painful faux likability moments. And just like that Pawlenty is now off on a media tour channeling some weird composite of Winston Churchill and Tony Soprano. And coming from such a soft guy, it only makes him seem more preposterous.

What's weird about this is that Pawlenty has been telegraphing this over-compensation for months. Watch this Independence Day-esque pre-campaign video campaign video Pawlenty released back in January ("Courage to Stand") with its man-of-destiny, action hero accents ...

(VIDEO)

The more he struggles the deeper he's stuck. For all his reckless courage, this brown paper bag has overmanned him.​

###
 

besada

Banned
Invisible_Insane said:
I think I've made it clear that I'm not saying it's a TERRIBLE FUCKING DECISION.

When you lead with stupid, petty fuck, and then go on about how stupid an idea it is, you can forgive us for thinking you believe it to be a terrible fucking decision, no? You're the one who made a big deal out of something that isn't actually a big deal. The markets aren't rioting and freaking out, nor are the people reporting this, just you.

There isn't any good reason to believe that this is going to produce any significant drop in oil prices

Considering oil prices have already dropped to their lowest in 2011 on the news of the release, I suspect the NYT might want to revisit that prediction.

The only people getting boned here are the oil companies, whose stocks also went down, and the speculators (who this was actually aimed at), who just got fucked hard since they've been betting on a sharp increase as we rolled further into summer.
 
Invisible_Insane said:
What does it accomplish?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/business/24oil.html?_r=1&hp
It is unclear how much more prices could come down, if at all, with the release of the reserve oil, which is not a large amount given worldwide consumption levels.

I'm quite wary of using the strategic reserve in this manner. But releasing a token amount to get a psychological change in the market may be effective.

NEW YORK (AP) -- Oil plunged nearly 5 percent Thursday after the International Energy Agency said it will release 60 million barrels of oil from its reserves to make up for a loss of Libyan exports in global oil markets.

The IEA, which includes the U.S., will release 2 million barrels per day over the next 30 days. Half of that will come from U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which currently holds 727 million barrels in underground caverns along the Gulf Coast.
 
Pawlenty really blew his chances by not confronting Romney over the debates. It's going to drag him all the way into the primaries. Watch for his absolute gung-ho, out W-ing W approach to foreign policy during the next debates.
 

besada

Banned
PantherLotus said:

Now he's stuck in a feedback loop like the one Al Gore got into back in 1999/2000. Rightly or wrongly, once critics pegged Gore as the guy who was 'stiff' and unlikeable, he spent the next year oscillating between 'Al Gore's so stiff jokes' and painful faux likability moments. And just like that Pawlenty is now off on a media tour channeling some weird composite of Winston Churchill and Tony Soprano. And coming from such a soft guy, it only makes him seem more preposterous.

It's funny, because I immediately thought of Bush Senior, who was plagued by comments about how much of a pussy he was, and whose attempt to put that to rest just made him seem twitchy and out of control.
 
besada said:
When you lead with stupid, petty fuck, and then go on about how stupid an idea it is, you can forgive us for thinking you believe it to be a terrible fucking decision, no? You're the one who made a big deal out of something that isn't actually a big deal. The markets aren't rioting and freaking out, nor are the people reporting this, just you.

The only people getting boned here are the oil companies, whose stocks also went down, and the speculators (who this was actually aimed at), who just got fucked hard since they've been betting on a sharp increase as we rolled further into summer.
I'm not freaking out. I don't think it's dramatic to characterize the decision as silly/stupid and politically motivated. Like Jackson50 joked above, it smacks of "gas-tax holiday" opportunism ca. 2008.

speculawyer said:
I'm quite wary of using the strategic reserve in this manner. But releasing a token amount to get a psychological change in the market may be effective.
For how long? That's my problem here: I'm not sure what long-term results this is supposed to produce. We add a token amount of oil to the world oil markets... and then what?
 

Loudninja

Member
Obama's drawdown riskier than military first advised: Mullen
"I would prefer not to discuss the specifics of the private advice I rendered with respect to these decisions. As I said, I support them," Mullen, chairman of the U.S. military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in prepared remarks he was due to deliver at a hearing due to start shortly.

"What I can tell you is, the president's decisions are more aggressive and incur more risk than I was originally prepared to accept."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2011/06/obamas_drawdown_riskier_than_military_first_advise.php

Damn its either too fast or too slow no way to win.
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
Invisible_Insane said:
For how long? That's my problem here: I'm not sure what long-term results this is supposed to produce. We add a token amount of oil to the world oil markets... and then what?
we do nothing. it's a one-time shot a la the Fed Reserve dropping the target rate to zero and handcuffing ourselves to further action.
 
Invisible_Insane said:
For how long? That's my problem here: I'm not sure what long-term results this is supposed to produce. We add a token amount of oil to the world oil markets... and then what?
Why do you assume it was designed to have a long-term effect? It is just a short term thing designed to put more oil on the market during the summer driving season and while Libya is off-line.

If we are lucky, Libya will be resolved by the time this gimmick ends.


And this may also be viewed as a stealth stimulus package. I just filled up for less than $4/gallon today . . . something that I haven't been able to do for a while. If people feel that their gas bill is a little lower, they may spend more in other areas and give the economy a little kick.


But in the long term, I agree this is meaningless.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
speculawyer said:
I'm quite wary of using the strategic reserve in this manner. But releasing a token amount to get a psychological change in the market may be effective.


And this is the reason why I think it's not a stupid idea at all. When you deal with a market that doesn't care completely about the realities on the ground, then you have to do somethings to change the psychology of the market.
 

besada

Banned
Invisible_Insane said:
I'm not freaking out. I don't think it's dramatic to characterize the decision as silly/stupid and politically motivated. Like Jackson50 joked above, it smacks of "gas-tax holiday" opportunism ca. 2008.

You don't think it's dramatic that your entire initial comment was, and I quote:
Oh, for the love of God, you stupid, petty, fuck...

Because it's a considerable overreaction to what actually happened. And, of course, you followed that up with predictions that turned out to be entirely wrong, which you're just conveniently not addressing now.

Were there political motivations behind the release? Sure, just like there have been in nearly every other major release from the SPR. But Obama released it at the request of the IEA (and Democrats on the hill, who've also requested a release), and it appears to be having the intended effect, which is to drive oil speculators out of the market on a temporary basis and to smooth the transition to the heaviest driving period of the summer.

You keep saying it's a stupid idea, and yet the only evidence you produced to support this was a prediction from the NYT that turned out to be completely wrong and comparisons to an imaginary "gas tax holiday" which has nothing to do with this release.

If you think it's a bad decision, it's incumbent on you to show why, rather than just repeat that it's stupid as fuck. Having some evidence, other than your opinion, and being willing to confront counter-evidence, would also be helpful. So far your argument has consisted of hysterical exhortations and opinions regarding the result that fly in the face of the facts.
 
Unemployment Applications jump by most in a month


WASHINGTON (AP) - The number of people who applied for unemployment benefits last week rose by the most in a month, signaling growing weakness in the job market.

Applications rose by 9,000 to a seasonally adjusted 429,000 last week, the Labor Department said Thursday. It was the second increase in three weeks and the 11th straight week that applications have been above 400,000.

The four-week average for unemployment benefit applications, a less volatile measure, was unchanged at 426,250 last week.

Applications dipped below 400,000 in February and stayed under that threshold for seven of the following nine weeks. Applications fell as low as 375,000, a level that signals sustainable job growth. But applications surged in April to an eight-month high of 478,000 and have shown only modest improvement since that time.

Companies pulled back on hiring in the spring in the face of higher gas and food prices. That has cut into consumer spending on other discretionary items, such as furniture and appliances, which help boost economic growth.

Employers added only 54,000 net new jobs in May, much slower than the average gain of 220,000 per month in the previous three months. The unemployment rate rose to 9.1 percent from 9 percent in April.

The economy needs to generate at least 125,000 jobs per month just to keep up with population growth
. And at least twice that many jobs are needed to bring down the unemployment rate.

The Federal Reserve acknowledged on Wednesday that the economy has slowed in recent months. Fed officials also said in a statement summing up their two-day meeting that "recent labor market indicators have been weaker than anticipated."

As a result, the Fed reduced its forecast for employment and growth this year. It projects that unemployment at the end of 2011 will be around 8.6 percent to 8.9 percent. That's more pessimistic than its forecast from two months ago, which had put the unemployment rate at 8.4 percent to 8.7 percent by year's end.

That pessimism is also seen in projections by private economists. According to an Associated Press Economy survey last week, the nation will add only about 1.9 million jobs this year and the unemployment rate will fall to only 8.7 percent at the end of the year.

The Labor Department reported that computer processing problems forced the agency to make estimates for five states and one territory last week. The states affected were Ohio, Mississippi, Oregon, New Hampshire, Washington state and the Virgin Islands. That means the national figure could be revised slightly when the actual data from those states is processed.

The number of people receiving unemployment benefits dropped by 1,000 to 3.7 million. But that doesn't include the millions of additional unemployed Americans receiving benefits under emergency benefit programs put in place during the recession.

All told, 7.5 million received benefits during the week ending June 4, that's up by 137,000 from the previous week.


More hiring is critical to boosting the economic growth. It leads to greater consumer spending, which accounts for 70 percent of total economic activity. Consumer spending slowed to a 2.2 percent growth rate in the first three months of this year. T
he weakness reflected the rise in gas prices.

The Fed on Wednesday left a key interest rate unchanged at near zero percent and repeated a pledge to keep rates exceptionally low for "an extended period."

Fed officials said in a statement that they think the main causes of the economy's slowdown, such as high gas prices and supply disruptions from Japan's disasters, are temporary. Once those problems subside, Fed officials said the economy should rebound.

But at a news conference after the statement was released, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke acknowledged that some of the problems slowing the economy could persist into next year. He cited continued weakness in the financial sector and persistent problems in the housing market.

.

Depressing read. Obama needs to do something....and fast.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Invisible_Insane said:
I'm not freaking out. I don't think it's dramatic to characterize the decision as silly/stupid and politically motivated. Like Jackson50 joked above, it smacks of "gas-tax holiday" opportunism ca. 2008.

A gas-tax holiday has negative effects due to what that tax money goes to. You'd be cutting gas prices by 20 cent a gallon, but bringing in less tax money to fix and build roads and bridges.

These are two different gimmicks.
 
RustyNails said:
Pawlenty really blew his chances by not confronting Romney over the debates. It's going to drag him all the way into the primaries. Watch for his absolute gung-ho, out W-ing W approach to foreign policy during the next debates.
Yeah, he is toast. He never had much personality. His tough-guy act is coming off as hokey. He pussied out with Romney in the debate. Bachmann will beat him in Iowa. Stick a fork in him, he is done.
 
PhoenixDark said:
To be fair, there's nothing he can do. The economy is basically being starved by congressional sabotage. People pretending like this will magically change next year are delusional.

I'd be shocked if he doesn't have Bush-esque poll numbers next June. This joke is over.
These fucking spineless dems really need to speak up about said congressional sabotage. When this congress started, the Republicans stated that their main goal was to make Obama a single term president, and it's obvious that they've been sabotaging the American economy as a means to that end.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
PhoenixDark said:
To be fair, there's nothing he can do. The economy is basically being starved by congressional sabotage. People pretending like this will magically change next year are delusional.

I'd be shocked if he doesn't have Bush-esque poll numbers next June. This joke is over.

So you think Obama will have low 30% poll numbers by next summer?
 
polyh3dron said:
These fucking spineless dems really need to speak up about said congressional sabotage. When this congress started, the Republicans stated that their main goal was to make Obama a single term president, and it's obvious that they've been sabotaging the American economy as a means to that end.
They should also put it on record. Reid should hold vote after vote on things to help the economy.
 

Cyan

Banned
Dr. Pangloss said:
Pension plans are really a minor problem when it comes to budgets. In fact, social security is probably the best run federal program to date. Even Republicans did not bother to mess with it in their budget. It's only during down turns that pensions become a problem due to less tax revenue (resources). But I believe this problem is out weight by the benefits they provide in their stable income for earners even during down turns. If this country solved the growth in health costs, and the drag energy has on the economy, then more resources could be dictated to pension plans. Problem solved.
This is... not really accurate.

Pensions aren't a problem in downturns because of less revenue, but because of the accompanying loss in pension plan assets.

A quick primer: pension obligations are calculated using some actuarial assumptions (we expect employees to get this many raises, retire at this point, live this long, and thus we have this much accrued in liabilities toward them). Convert to present value, subtract from current plan assets, and you have either a net pension liability or asset.

So there are two ways for your pension plan to get in trouble: an increase in obligations (fairly easy to predict and plan for) or a decrease in assets (potentially unpredictable). The current troubles with pension plans are entirely due to the latter. Market crashes, plan assets take a dive in value, you're boned.
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
PD, I think you need a break. Or you need to clean out your keyboard -- you've been accidentally typing "it's over," "it's all over now," "stick a fork in him" and various other vagueries related to your disaffection with the Obama administration, but with relatively little political analysis to back it up.

The economy fucking sucks. But it doesn't suck worse than the Republican field and the American public mostly gets that. You can step back from the ledge now, or at least you can politely stop trying to push us. It's getting annoying now.
 
besada said:
You don't think it's dramatic that your entire initial comment was, and I quote:


Because it's a considerable overreaction to what actually happened. And, of course, you followed that up with predictions that turned out to be entirely wrong, which you're just conveniently not addressing now.

Were there political motivations behind the release? Sure, just like there have been in nearly every other major release from the SPR. But Obama released it at the request of the IEA (and Democrats on the hill, who've also requested a release), and it appears to be having the intended effect, which is to drive oil speculators out of the market on a temporary basis and to smooth the transition to the heaviest driving period of the summer.

You keep saying it's a stupid idea, and yet the only evidence you produced to support this was a prediction from the NYT that turned out to be completely wrong and comparisons to an imaginary "gas tax holiday" which has nothing to do with this release.

If you think it's a bad decision, it's incumbent on you to show why, rather than just repeat that it's stupid as fuck. Having some evidence, other than your opinion, and being willing to confront counter-evidence, would also be helpful. So far your argument has consisted of hysterical exhortations and opinions regarding the result that fly in the face of the facts.
I admit that I overreacted initially based on the reporting from the Washington Post, which initially only said that he was releasing oil from the SPR because of fear of disruptions in the supply in Libya, which I didn't think made very much sense especially given that gas prices had begun falling on their own without specific intervention, and that Libya's effect on the global oil supplies is fairly minimal to begin with--someone mentioned earlier that the Libyan intervention caused significant disruption in the markets despite this fact, which is a good point. Nonetheless, if restricted supplies aren't responsible for the current state of gas prices, it's not clear to me that increasing the available supply is going to shift the price significantly.

I think it's far too early to claim that this strategy has worked-it's been about 4 hours. It'll have to be a couple of weeks at least before we establish whether this causes prices to be lower now than they would be otherwise.

I mentioned the gas tax holiday in order to suggest that this is the same sort of sounds-good action that has incredibly little effect on what is fundamentally responsible for high gas prices.
 

Cyan

Banned
GaimeGuy said:
Even considering the abnormal relative sizes of the baby boomer population and gens x/y that put a much bigger strain on the system than traditionally normal population differences across generations, if congress hadn't raided the social security fund to pay for other stuff without having to raise taxes, social seucrity would be basically solvent right now. Like, the present value of the long term debt would be $50B in the most pessimistic forecast
Why do people keep spreading this bizarre notion? Congress didn't "raid social security." The fund isn't full of IOUs. It's not a Ponzi.

I don't know where this stuff comes from.
 
PantherLotus said:
PD, I think you need a break. Or you need to clean out your keyboard -- you've been accidentally typing "it's over," "it's all over now," "stick a fork in him" and various other vagueries related to your disaffection with the Obama administration, but with relatively little political analysis to back it up.

The economy fucking sucks. But it doesn't suck worse than the Republican field and the American public mostly gets that. You can step back from the ledge now, or at least you can politely stop trying to push us. It's getting annoying now.

Romney doesn't suck as a candidate, that's the problem; if this was merely a circus show with Bachman and Ron Paul types you'd be right. But the GOP actually has a "credible" (laughable I know) economic candidate for once. Obama was elected because the economy was a disaster, and 3 years later it's still a disaster for millions of people. Given the fickle nature of the public, it's not going to be surprising when they finally turn on Obama. And there's nothing he can do.

If there was some light at the end of the tunnel sure, I'd be more positive. But I remember last year arguing the economy wasn't getting significantly better and being dismissed by you and others. And here you are with another "wait until next year" argument. The economy needs some type of spark, and congress will not let that happen; there are some who would risk a debt default rather than do anything to get people back to work. They've ran the clock out on Obama's presidency for 3 years, and now the ball is in their court.
 
speculawyer said:
They should also put it on record. Reid should hold vote after vote on things to help the economy.
Would be good to do, but likely won't happen because too many asshat democrats would vote adversely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom