• 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.
TacticalFox88 said:
That would require both parties to stop being morons and do shit about it and pass legislation.
This type of logic requires the help of Republican party. It's futile.

Obama should clog the congress with hundreds of spending/job bills. It's the only way.
 
RustyNails said:
This type of logic requires the help of Republican party. It's futile.

Obama should clog the congress with hundreds of spending/job bills. It's the only way.
And then PUBlic say, "Hey, you guys promised to jobs back in 2010, here are some Jobs bills to pass. Either do it or don't and I call you out in public while on the campaign showing video of you promising to help jobs, but not voting for job legislation."
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
RustyNails said:
This type of logic requires the help of Republican party. It's futile.

Obama should clog the congress with hundreds of spending/job bills. It's the only way.

1 added job per bill. That should keep Congress busy.
 

KtSlime

Member
Jason's Ultimatum said:
CBO predicting unemployment will remain 8%+ until 2014.

Now is that real unemployed? Or are they not counting new college graduates, new high-school graduates, and people that ran out of unemployment benefits?
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
TacticalFox88 said:
That would require both parties to stop being morons and do shit about it and pass legislation.
The biggest impediment to any legislative action is that the only viable solution to this level of unemployment is massive government spending to cover the slack in consumer spending. that won't pass, and anything that could potentially pass both chambers (tax breaks) would likely be used to either repay past debts, or to be put in savings. regardless, that money isn't likely to be put back into the economy quick enough to do any good.

corporations are still taking in nice profits with increased efficiency of their reduced workforce. we're still not sure whether this is a structural or cyclical recession, as well, so even massive government spending might only provide a temporary reprieve.
 
TacticalFox88 said:
That would require both parties to stop being morons and do shit about it and pass legislation.
Honestly i blame the Democrats more than the Republicans. The Republicans don´t want to work with Obama, since they are the opposition. The Democrats however lack the balls to get their agenda through. As far as i am concerned Obama lost a huge opportunity for not passing a lot of his/democrats´ agenda at the beginning of his term.
 
ivedoneyourmom said:
Now is that real unemployed? Or are they not counting new college graduates, new high-school graduates, and people that ran out of unemployment benefits?
Unemployment is the percentage of the work force that doesn't have a job. The work force is the percentage of the working age population that either has a job or is looking for one. People that ran out of unemployment benefits would fall under the "discouraged workers" category, i.e. people who have dropped out of the work force because they stopped looking.

(I'm taking Macroeconomics this semester, and one of the first things we've learned has been all the different metrics having to do with unemployment)
 

KtSlime

Member
HylianTom said:
Wow.. that's optimistic. Will they be changing the formula again?

According to the department of labor's U-6 calculation of the unemployment rate, as of August it is 16.4%.

The U-6 is much more accurate, but still IMO not as accurate as it should be at measuring the true unemployment.

This country is a joke.

cooljeanius: All semantics to me. The optimistic calculation is a lie.
 
Beam said:
Honestly i blame the Democrats more than the Republicans. The Republicans don´t want to work with Obama, since they are the opposition. The Democrats however lack the balls to get their agenda through. As far as i am concerned Obama lost a huge opportunity for not passing a lot of his/democrats´ agenda at the beginning of his term.
Obama had a very small window of supermajority in the congress: just a few months. The protracted Norm Coleman vs Al Franken ballot took forever to sort out. And after it did, Democrats lost their 60th seat in Massachusetts after Scoot Brown took over. Just a few months basically. I would blame Obama's inexperience in lacking the foresight of politicking. He truly believed he would heal everything, and was afraid of offending Republicans/burning bridges by using his supermajority. He probably should have passed single payer in that window, but hindsight is a complete bitch. I also blame Rahm Emmanuel.
 

Jak140

Member
Well, time to post this everywhere I can:





Also anyone see Obama's speech this morning? It was nice to hear him lie the blame where it lies, by calling out Republicans for once. Wish he would do it more often.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Err, that graph proves nothing. Most of the cuts won't take effect for a couple of years.
 
Suikoguy said:
Err, that graph proves nothing. Most of the cuts won't take effect for a couple of years.

Doesnt the fox machine rant on about how "the Obama uncertainty" kills jobs?

What creates more uncertainty than billions in cuts?
 

KtSlime

Member
jamesinclair said:
Doesnt the fox machine rant on about how "the Obama uncertainty" kills jobs?

What creates more uncertainty than billions in cuts?

What the hell is "the Obama uncertainty"?(I don't watch FOX) Whenever he gets up to say something he will appeal to what little shreds of hope I have remaining, and then directly go and side with the GOP on the issue in an attempt to curry their favor. That's pretty certain to me. :lol
 

Jak140

Member
Suikoguy said:
Err, that graph proves nothing. Most of the cuts won't take effect for a couple of years.
I suppose it oversimplifies things, but it does seem to correlate to the notion that removing money (government spending) from the economy and threatening government shutdown creates far more uncertainty and economic damage than the threat of higher taxes or increasing the debt under current conditions. Also, didn't the budget debate earlier this year (not the later debt ceiling debate) result in billions being cut from this years budget?
 

GhaleonEB

Member
Jak140 said:
Well, time to post this everywhere I can:





Also anyone see Obama's speech this morning? It was nice to hear him lie the blame where it lies, by calling out Republicans for once. Wish he would do it more often.
It has more to do with other factors, such as gas prices, Europe, and the general chaos created by the debt 'debate'.

Actual policy hasn't had much impact yet. I think it's fair to put much of the blame on the GOP - they've been blocking jobs bills for over a year now - but the labeling on that chart is misleading.
 

Jackson50

Member
scorcho said:
The biggest impediment to any legislative action is that the only viable solution to this level of unemployment is massive government spending to cover the slack in consumer spending. that won't pass, and anything that could potentially pass both chambers (tax breaks) would likely be used to either repay past debts, or to be put in savings. regardless, that money isn't likely to be put back into the economy quick enough to do any good.

corporations are still taking in nice profits with increased efficiency of their reduced workforce. we're still not sure whether this is a structural or cyclical recession, as well, so even massive government spending might only provide a temporary reprieve.
That is the doleful, sobering reality of our predicament. Anything that could sufficiently correct the short term will likely prove unpalatable. That is why the glaring shortcomings of the ARRA are maddening. We had an opportunity to pass something meaningful, and we partially botched it. Understandably, everyone underestimated the magnitude of the recession. Otherwise, the mere composition of the stimulus was defective. What a regrettably flawed bill.
 

thekad

Banned
Jackson50 said:
That is the doleful, sobering reality of our predicament. Anything that could sufficiently correct the short term will likely prove unpalatable. That is why the glaring shortcomings of the ARRA are maddening. We had an opportunity to pass something meaningful, and we partially botched it. Understandably, everyone underestimated the magnitude of the recession. Otherwise, the mere composition of the stimulus was defective. What a regrettably flawed bill.

Did we? I'm not sure they could have passed anything noticeably better.
 
Jak140 said:
Well, time to post this everywhere I can:





Also anyone see Obama's speech this morning? It was nice to hear him lie the blame where it lies, by calling out Republicans for once. Wish he would do it more often.

That graph is very deceptive, and is based on the very same confidence fairy nonsense liberals disregard. The debt shit has little to do with unemployment: gas prices and lack of people buying shit has more to do with it. Not to mention the administration doing nothing about the economy back in late 09/early 2010 when they could have
 

Jak140

Member
PhoenixDark said:
That graph is very deceptive, and is based on the very same confidence fairy nonsense liberals disregard.

False equivalency.

There is a huge difference in the economic disruption caused by the supposed fear the wealthy elite might have due to a possible future tax increase of 2% and the very real fear caused by Republicans during the debt ceiling debate that the US government might not meet its debt obligations or might shut down the government rather than pass a budget.
 
The graph does not show that the cuts have caused the damage, but that graph at least demonstrates that the political debate about spending cuts is not creating "confidence". For months, conservatives argued that they were not ignoring the jobs crisis by insisting on spending cuts because coming up with a plan to reduce the deficit would create confidence by proving that the Federal Goverment was starting to be fiscally responsible again. Now that they accomplished that goal, there is no evidence that investors are more likely to invest and create jobs. If the austerity measures have not created enough confidence to improve the job market, we have to wonder why we did it at all.

Of course, its never really about create jobs. It has always been about enacting the conservative agenda by claiming that everything they oppose is the cause of mass unemployment, conveniently ignoring the fact that the crisis was caused by irresponsibility in the private sector and massive amounts of bad consumer debt.
 

Puddles

Banned
scorcho said:
corporations are still taking in nice profits with increased efficiency of their reduced workforce. we're still not sure whether this is a structural or cyclical recession, as well, so even massive government spending might only provide a temporary reprieve.

THIS is what we should be looking at, but no one really seems to be interested. Actual increases in efficiency only go so far; the real problem is employees being overworked and taking on responsibilities that used to be spread out over 2-3 people.
 
Sathsquatch said:
The graph does not show that the cuts have caused the damage, but that graph at least demonstrates that the political debate about spending cuts is not creating "confidence". For months, conservatives argued that they were not ignoring the jobs crisis by insisting on spending cuts because coming up with a plan to reduce the deficit would create confidence by proving that the Federal Goverment was starting to be fiscally responsible again. Now that they accomplished that goal, there is no evidence that investors are more likely to invest and create jobs. If the austerity measures have not created enough confidence to improve the job market, we have to wonder why we did it at all.

I don't know if you've been listening (God knows I wish I wasn't) but the GOP has gotten off fiscal responsibility and been banging the OMG REGULATIONS drum pretty hard for the past few weeks. Just something else for Obama to cave on!
 

Puddles

Banned
I've found that no one can really point out any specific regulations that are impeding hiring.

Obama needs to say something like "If you have suggestions for specific regulations that should be cut back or streamlined that you think would increase job growth, I'd be happy to listen to you."
 
Well they want the entire EPA basically disbanded. That is what they would say to him. Plus they've been talking about how Dodd-Frank is a disaster for businesses.
 

Piecake

Member
Puddles said:
I've found that no one can really point out any specific regulations that are impeding hiring.

Obama needs to say something like "If you have suggestions for specific regulations that should be cut back or streamlined that you think would increase job growth, I'd be happy to listen to you."

The thing that is impeding hiring is demand, and the uncertainty that comes with the lack of demand. Easing regulations isnt going to change that one bit
 
GhaleonEB said:
It has more to do with other factors, such as gas prices, Europe, and the general chaos created by the debt 'debate'.

Actual policy hasn't had much impact yet. I think it's fair to put much of the blame on the GOP - they've been blocking jobs bills for over a year now - but the labeling on that chart is misleading.

This is just as bad as these liberal commentators who say Clinton raised taxes during the 90s and the economy created 20 million jobs.
 

Gr1mLock

Passing metallic gas
worldrunover said:
I don't know if you've been listening (God knows I wish I wasn't) but the GOP has gotten off fiscal responsibility and been banging the OMG REGULATIONS drum pretty hard for the past few weeks. Just something else for Obama to cave on!

I know i shouldn't but i couldn't help but laugh.
 

Puddles

Banned
To anyone who is better informed about this than I am: how big a role did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play in the 2008 economic crisis?
 

Piecake

Member
Puddles said:
To anyone who is better informed about this than I am: how big a role did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play in the 2008 economic crisis?

a fairly minor one

This American Life has some excellent podcasts on the topic. I recommend listening to those
 

thekad

Banned
They followed the big banks down the rabbit hole once toxic subprimes became the way of doing business. Fannie/Freddie didn't cause the crisis; they expanded it.

Though the ultimate crash would have happened without them.
 

Piecake

Member
thekad said:
They followed the big banks down the rabbit hole once toxic subprimes became the way of doing business. Fannie/Freddie didn't cause the crisis; they expanded it.

Though the ultimate crash would have happened without them.

I think that is a bit disingenuous since Fannie and Freddie were by no means the biggest sub-prime mortgage lender nor did they give out the worst ones. Other mortgage companies were FAR FAR worse
 

Puddles

Banned
This is the kind of thinking that seems to be pretty common on the conservative side regarding the financial crash and Dodd-Frank.

Also, there seems to be a commonly held belief that government regulation somehow caused the bad mortgages to be given out? I need to brush up on that.
 

gcubed

Member
Puddles said:
THIS is what we should be looking at, but no one really seems to be interested. Actual increases in efficiency only go so far; the real problem is employees being overworked and taking on responsibilities that used to be spread out over 2-3 people.
Cough...unions...cough
 

Piecake

Member
Puddles said:
This is the kind of thinking that seems to be pretty common on the conservative side regarding the financial crash and Dodd-Frank.

Also, there seems to be a commonly held belief that government regulation somehow caused the bad mortgages to be given out? I need to brush up on that.

Well, some nutsos think that since Fannie and Freddie's mission is to loan to poor people, its entirely their fault that we got into this whole mess since they lend out sub-prime loans as part of their mission statement.

Of course, that completely ignores that other mortgage companies gave out MUCH MUCH more sub-prime loans than Fannie and Freddie and they gave out the worst ones. The reason why Fannie and Freddie did not give out the worst ones was due to government regulations.
 

ReBurn

Gold Member
Puddles said:
This is the kind of thinking that seems to be pretty common on the conservative side regarding the financial crash and Dodd-Frank.

Also, there seems to be a commonly held belief that government regulation somehow caused the bad mortgages to be given out? I need to brush up on that.
Pish...everyone knows that the mortgage crisis was Bill Clinton's fault because he signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall. There's even a chart and everything:

28sac8g.jpg
 
Jak140 said:
Well, time to post this everywhere I can:





Also anyone see Obama's speech this morning? It was nice to hear him lie the blame where it lies, by calling out Republicans for once. Wish he would do it more often.

He was in front of a group of Union members on labor day. He has to pretend that he gives a shit about working people one day a year.

On the other hand, I'm honestly surprised he wasn't dim enough to start talking about his administration's push for new "free" trade deals.
 

dave is ok

aztek is ok
My girlfriends mom blames the government forcing banks to lend to poor people as the cause of the crash.

I told her the banks were actively seeking poor people because whether or not they paid their mortgage was irrelevant to them, they just securitized them and sold them off anyway. Collected fees for selling the derivatives and then shorted them after they were sold. They made money every step of the way.
 
Snarkiness overload on this page.


dave is ok said:
My girlfriends mom blames the government forcing banks to lend to poor people as the cause of the crash.

I told her the banks were actively seeking poor people because whether or not they paid their mortgage was irrelevant to them, they just securitized them and sold them off anyway. Collected fees for selling the derivatives and then shorted them after they were sold. They made money every step of the way.

And they believed they had equity in an asset who's value would assuredly continue to grow into perpetuity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom