Black Mamba
Member
PoliGAF 2014 |OT2| Come Debate Metavitameatavegamin For 200 Pages!
-
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 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News
- Thread starter bananas
- Start date
- Status
benjipwns
Banned
They're a key point of the plot, Kratos seeks them out to go back in time, they refuse to play along because dude that's like all sorts of paradoxes and shit, so he winds up killing them (duh) and does go back in time to fight Zeus.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
NYCmetsfan
Banned
like most of those are links, I was also unemployed for a bit
/shame
I think this is 2 you're talking about.
benjipwns
Banned
Do we get jerbs numbers today?
Wow, surprised I'm that high since I feel like I've stopped posting as much over the past few months.
And yes, it was Power Rangers, btw. Never saw Animorphs. Maybe I should have when it was still on the air. Ah well.
What do you expect from a Democrat.
Wow, surprised I'm that high since I feel like I've stopped posting as much over the past few months.
And yes, it was Power Rangers, btw. Never saw Animorphs. Maybe I should have when it was still on the air. Ah well.
What do you expect from a Democrat.
benjipwns
Banned
Remember to adjust it down one for Julia Pierson.
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
cartoon_soldier
Member
Obama should have gone ahead with the immigration decision. Democrats need to rev up the base somehow for the mid terms, waiting for elections to be over makes no sense.
Not to mention the actual effects it has on people's lives.
Not to mention the actual effects it has on people's lives.
Joe Molotov
Member
What??? Politics isn't about people's lives, it's about optics and Winning the Morning.
Republican senate already putting in that work.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Which is why Obamacare was passed of course
RustyNails
Member
Romney economy is working.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Participation rate fell to a 36 year low, wages are stagnat. Good news is that full time/skllled jobs are increasing but we're still in a huge hole.
But can you imagine the response if Romney was president during this period of jobs increases? Thank god he lost.
Obama (or DC in general) has very little to do with that (rather weak) economic recovery. Now it's true, it's pretty damn hard to get anything through congress, but the most credit he can claim is that he didn't wrecked the economy any further.
p.s.
Unemployment is still appallingly high, The deficit could be higher, the inflation is too low and the stock market is pretty much divorced from the real economy.
Clinton gets that credit for the 90s economic view even though it was just a sign of the times.
And now democrats believe that "balancing the budget" is an inherently good thing.
jamesinclair
Banned
Holy shit Arizona, I dont even...
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...jects-scrapped-across-az-law-change/16571441/
Essentially a giant subsidy for sprawl
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...jects-scrapped-across-az-law-change/16571441/
Essentially a giant subsidy for sprawl
Rhomega Beta
Member
Yeah, I'm not surprised by California, considering complaints of high taxes and regulations that are turning it "socialist". Similarly, I just know they want to kick Chicago out too. Also:
Lord Fagan
Junior Member
If 5.9% unemployment is appallingly high, what is the proper adjective to describe unemployment of 7% or higher?
Lord Fagan
Junior Member
At what point is the rate no longer appalling? This is like asking, at what threshold does the number become unworthy of hyperbolic rhetoric?
Is there like an actual substantial point you're trying to argue here?
Like, do you think that 5.9 unemployment rate is not too high?
You're acting like 'appallingly' is a scientific qualifier.
I personally think that this is still a very high figure that encompass in it an ocean of human misery, but hey, it's trending down while "our guy" is in office, so no need to demand any sort of action from Washington.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Lord Fagan
Junior Member
Funny, I was wondering the same thing about you when I first asked about proper adjectives.
Don't think I actually said that. Really, I'm more interested in if you stratify your economic reaction beyond the categories of, "Acceptable," and, "Appalling."
No, you are. Because you're attaching the word to a scientific metric. I'm openly questioning that, not the other way around.
I'm with you here...
...but this is where you fall into that hyperbole I was mentioning, earlier.
Well...sure, they could definitely be doing more, but are you angry that it's trending down, or because you have a personal problem with POTUS? I suspect it's the latter, but I fear if I dig too deeply, you'll only become more emotional about it.
Bel Marduk
Banned
Supposedly, voters won't have time to make an informed decision until election day..
Of course, the real reason is that younger voters overwhelmingly favor Democrats and it would be very inconvenient to most to only be able to vote on election day (this is compounded in urban areas where in some cases there are few polling places relative to the population.) To an older, whiter demographic, it would be much less of a problem to vote on election day.. particularly since a lot of these people (ie the Republican base) are retired.
Pretty transparent if you ask me.
RustyNails
Member
Obama did the best he could with the broken Congress. He was able to pass Stimulus and ACA in the 70 or so days when he had a clear supermajority and bailed out the auto industry and financial industry which repaid the loans in full + interest. For the rest of 6 years there is nothing really substantive done other than Partial bush tax cuts. So in perspective I dont really think 5.9 % UE is appallingly high. Its just...high. But if you look at the trajectory, we'll be in the ok to good territory within a year.
Was a 6 part fisking really all that necessary for that post?.
Anyway, I don't think 6% unemployment is acceptable, and I don't think that saying this number encompass a sea of misery is a hyperbole on any level.
Even if you take the approach that unemployment rate above "full employment" is a representation of how many people can't find job (and it really really isn't, it's not close on any level, but hey, it's a super useful framing for promoting wage suppression, but I digress...) that's still almost 10 million people. I think that description, while might not be the most restrained one in the world, is appropriate.
And of course I'm not sad it's trending down, it's obviously a good thing, I just think we're getting a pretty damn weak recovery which is paraded by (some) liberals and (most) Democrats as this amazing economic result.
I don't think it is, it's not all Obama fault of course and lord know it's hard to get anything done with the republicans in congress, but I still think it's really much more productive to keep pushing him (and everyone in DC for that matter) to do much more about unemployment.
Or at the very least, we should not accept indicators like lower deficit, inflation and stock market index scores as measure of economic success, this is a conservative narrative and framing the discussion in such terms is poor choice for liberals in my mind.
i'm really not sure where you're going with this whole "YOUR ADJECTIVES ARE TOO UNOBJEEECTIVVEEEE" angle, lord fagan.
I will say this: being unemployed is a pretty universally miserable experience, especially when it coincides with constant benefit cuts. I wouldn't describe what chichikov said as hyperbolic in the slightest.
I will say this: being unemployed is a pretty universally miserable experience, especially when it coincides with constant benefit cuts. I wouldn't describe what chichikov said as hyperbolic in the slightest.
Lord Fagan
Junior Member
Fair enough, I'm not here to diminish the very real pain of those needing economic relief. If that's how it's coming off, I apologize. I don't mean to be misunderstood. And I certainly don't think I'm on a caps locked crusade so much as I'm digging for more insight than bite-sized, bullet point rhetoric when discussing the complexities behind all that economic hardship and suffering.
Say what you want about the fisking, but it did conjure a more robust explanation of your point of view, Chichikov, which I appreciate. Thank you.
Say what you want about the fisking, but it did conjure a more robust explanation of your point of view, Chichikov, which I appreciate. Thank you.
zero shift
Banned
The problem with the recovery is that most of the jobs gained back from it are low wage jobs.
Still better than nothing but things aren't as good as the numbers make them seem.
I see Clinton as a president who was nearly as damaging to the country as Reagan or Bush.
All that credit for being in office during the computer boom.
Still better than nothing but things aren't as good as the numbers make them seem.
I see Clinton as a president who was nearly as damaging to the country as Reagan or Bush.
All that credit for being in office during the computer boom.
What complexities are you thinking of here? So far all I'm getting from your posts is that you feel strongly about adjectives. What do you think about the economy?
Personally, while I think this represents a real albeit slow recovery, I can appreciate Chichikov's perspective. Zero unemployment is a practical (but not political) possibility today, so accepting 6% because of the trendline is pretty unfortunate.
WayneMorse
Banned
Will the jobs report help Udall and Braley at all?
Lord Fagan
Junior Member
Well, I'm not exactly making news when I say that the publicized UE rate paints only a partial picture, failing to take into account those who've dropped out of looking for work entirely, and the fuzzier metrics behind underemployment. This is a big part of why I think attaching extreme language to that simplified metric does more to muddy already opaque water, than anything else.
Beyond that, I'm absolutely down for complete tax reform. Top to bottom, every component. Corporate rates need to come down, deductions across the board need a very generous slashing, and the payroll/entitlement calculus is living in the 1960s when we're all clearly existing in a 21st century reality. I'm all for massive, fundamental changes in a very real sense, not the generalized, wholesale politic that's fed to interviewers on Sunday morning. I look at the work and ideas of Paul Ryan, and while skeptical of his slant towards "job creators" (ie the people who coincidentally have been laying off workers for the better part of a decade), I think his views on immigration reform being a way to ease the pressure from the boot on America's neck by broadening the overall tax base is enlightened, and deserves more backing from moderate Republicans who were once businesspeople before getting into office and should know better about what a good deal really is(spoiler alert: it's not turning down a 10:1 spending reduction to tax increase offer). Again, I've got issues with how he'd like to address entitlements, as do his own constituents if the videos of his town halls from a few years back are any indication, but I feel that in a vast sea of professional actors who are good at memorizing talking points from House leadership, that guy can name departments and agencies and numbers to cut, and present something resembling a rationale for the adjustments, instead of stumbling and making platitudes about not having time to get into the details when pressed for exactly that.
This isn't a v-shaped recovery, by any means. but the line is pointing up. Not down, yet also a bit flatter on the ascent than we'd all like. I think pigeon's sentiment about the practical and the political hits it right on the nose. Many complex factors at play. There's issues of generational shifting where the baby boomers are gumming up the works by not retiring as expected and aren't allowing the cycle of upward mobility within companies to function as it did in past decades. Globalization is requiring a rethinking of modern paradigms for supply, demand, and reasonable corporate motives. Technological innovation is outpacing cultural adaptation, exacerbating the continuing debate about just how much government regulation is needed to maintain harmony, while not going past a point of diminished returns.
I don't think Obama is a saint, or genius, or anything but exactly what he was before he became president: A Chicago politician. Whether he's directly responsible for the numbers or the market/poll reaction won't matter in 200 years. He's in charge, he owns it, it's the burden of leadership. But I ask myself where we were at the first two years of his presidency, and when I compare that to the current state of affairs, I feel it's been a modestly positive development. If Congress, the body that is actually in charge of substantively affecting tax and money policy weren't playing a seemingly neverending game of political point-scoring, those developments might be a little more positive.
While we might all say, "well that's what elections are for," I'm pretty sure every well-read person in this thread understands that even if the Senate flips, it's gonna be the same margins, only inverted. It's still gonna be two more years of gridlock, brinksmanship, and manufactured crises, until the next general election, the movie we've all seen over and over and over. Team A points out how horrible Team B is and how they've taken us out of our destined prosperity, and promises everything will go back to normal if we just let them drive the car. We either do, or we don't, and four years later, we watch the movie again. We're playing Tic-tac-toe, here. Both sides have gotten far too good at thinking eight or nine moves ahead, and the contest is not about winning, but about making sure the other side can't win. Perpetual stalemate.
I want a second Constitutional Convention.
Beyond that, I'm absolutely down for complete tax reform. Top to bottom, every component. Corporate rates need to come down, deductions across the board need a very generous slashing, and the payroll/entitlement calculus is living in the 1960s when we're all clearly existing in a 21st century reality. I'm all for massive, fundamental changes in a very real sense, not the generalized, wholesale politic that's fed to interviewers on Sunday morning. I look at the work and ideas of Paul Ryan, and while skeptical of his slant towards "job creators" (ie the people who coincidentally have been laying off workers for the better part of a decade), I think his views on immigration reform being a way to ease the pressure from the boot on America's neck by broadening the overall tax base is enlightened, and deserves more backing from moderate Republicans who were once businesspeople before getting into office and should know better about what a good deal really is(spoiler alert: it's not turning down a 10:1 spending reduction to tax increase offer). Again, I've got issues with how he'd like to address entitlements, as do his own constituents if the videos of his town halls from a few years back are any indication, but I feel that in a vast sea of professional actors who are good at memorizing talking points from House leadership, that guy can name departments and agencies and numbers to cut, and present something resembling a rationale for the adjustments, instead of stumbling and making platitudes about not having time to get into the details when pressed for exactly that.
This isn't a v-shaped recovery, by any means. but the line is pointing up. Not down, yet also a bit flatter on the ascent than we'd all like. I think pigeon's sentiment about the practical and the political hits it right on the nose. Many complex factors at play. There's issues of generational shifting where the baby boomers are gumming up the works by not retiring as expected and aren't allowing the cycle of upward mobility within companies to function as it did in past decades. Globalization is requiring a rethinking of modern paradigms for supply, demand, and reasonable corporate motives. Technological innovation is outpacing cultural adaptation, exacerbating the continuing debate about just how much government regulation is needed to maintain harmony, while not going past a point of diminished returns.
I don't think Obama is a saint, or genius, or anything but exactly what he was before he became president: A Chicago politician. Whether he's directly responsible for the numbers or the market/poll reaction won't matter in 200 years. He's in charge, he owns it, it's the burden of leadership. But I ask myself where we were at the first two years of his presidency, and when I compare that to the current state of affairs, I feel it's been a modestly positive development. If Congress, the body that is actually in charge of substantively affecting tax and money policy weren't playing a seemingly neverending game of political point-scoring, those developments might be a little more positive.
While we might all say, "well that's what elections are for," I'm pretty sure every well-read person in this thread understands that even if the Senate flips, it's gonna be the same margins, only inverted. It's still gonna be two more years of gridlock, brinksmanship, and manufactured crises, until the next general election, the movie we've all seen over and over and over. Team A points out how horrible Team B is and how they've taken us out of our destined prosperity, and promises everything will go back to normal if we just let them drive the car. We either do, or we don't, and four years later, we watch the movie again. We're playing Tic-tac-toe, here. Both sides have gotten far too good at thinking eight or nine moves ahead, and the contest is not about winning, but about making sure the other side can't win. Perpetual stalemate.
I want a second Constitutional Convention.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/business/us-unemployment-rate-history/
In the last 44 years since 1970, there have been 22 years with a year long average unemployment rate below 6%, and 22 years above it. I do think 6% is the higher threshold of what's normal unemployment in this country, which we're likely to fall below on a year long basis in 2015.
4% in the year 2000 is the lowest year long average unemployment rate we've had since 1970.
I can get behind looking at other numbers to show the state of the economy as not all there yet, like wages or participation rate or U6 unemployment, but it does seem you guys are putting too high of standards on the normal U3 unemployment numbers.
In the last 44 years since 1970, there have been 22 years with a year long average unemployment rate below 6%, and 22 years above it. I do think 6% is the higher threshold of what's normal unemployment in this country, which we're likely to fall below on a year long basis in 2015.
4% in the year 2000 is the lowest year long average unemployment rate we've had since 1970.
I can get behind looking at other numbers to show the state of the economy as not all there yet, like wages or participation rate or U6 unemployment, but it does seem you guys are putting too high of standards on the normal U3 unemployment numbers.
You don't want today's politicians anywhere NEAR a pen that could potentially have an effect on the Constitution.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
6% Unemployment could be a very good figure, depending on what it actually means. It's not that useful a number taken by itself.
1) How long have various slices of that 6% been unemployed?
2) How many people are not counted because they are out of the workforce altogether?
3) How many people are underemployed, working poor, or working multiple part-time jobs?
6% would be dandy if the rest of the workforce were fully employed and it mostly represented workers in transition.
1) How long have various slices of that 6% been unemployed?
2) How many people are not counted because they are out of the workforce altogether?
3) How many people are underemployed, working poor, or working multiple part-time jobs?
6% would be dandy if the rest of the workforce were fully employed and it mostly represented workers in transition.
No way in hell. Talk about a disturbing concept.
I shudder to think of how far many of them would go without the Constitution or our judiciary stopping them.
Lord Fagan
Junior Member
I can understand the apprehension, but similar arguments were made when the first one was proposed.
Except, the batshit craziness has been cranked up to 15 nowadays.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Those questions are all answered by the participation rate and the U1 and U6 unemployment rates. U1 is long term unemployed, U6 is underemployed, and participation rate measures people dropping out of the workforce.
U1 and U6 is getting a lot better, though clearly not there yet. Participation rate is not good at all, but can be highly manipulated by outside factors, like baby boomer retirement.
Black Mamba
Member
Participation rate would be at a record low even with a proper recovery. Most of it is old people retiring. It's going to continue no matter what state the economy is in.
That's not to say things are swell or r don't have discouraged workers but the whole 36 year low is irrelevant and improper framing.
I believe I called sub 6% over a year ago to hit before the election. Still I find the overall state of things unacceptable.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked