Support NeoGAF

[NullPointer]

American People Hire High-Powered Lobbyist To Push Interests In Congress

WASHINGTON—Citing a desire to gain influence in Washington, the American people confirmed Friday that they have hired high-powered D.C. lobbyist Jack Weldon of the firm Patton Boggs to help advance their agenda in Congress.

Known among Beltway insiders for his ability to sway public policy on behalf of massive corporations such as Johnson & Johnson, Monsanto, and AT&T, Weldon, 53, is expected to use his vast network of political connections to give his new client a voice in the legislative process.

Weldon is reportedly charging the American people $795 an hour.

"Unlike R.J. Reynolds, Pfizer, or Bank of America, the U.S. populace lacks the access to public officials required to further its legislative goals," a statement from the nation read in part. "Jack Weldon gives us that access."

"His daily presence in the Capitol will ensure the American people finally get a seat at the table," the statement continued. "And it will allow him to advance our message that everyone, including Americans, deserves to be represented in Washington."

Source: The Onion

Edit: And for more "funny in that it makes you want to curl up in a ball and weep", Here's Jon Stewart taking on our new foreclosure based economy. A must watch.
Video here: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-7-2010/foreclosure-crisis

 

[RustyNails]

4-5% is just laughable. I think it'll hit 7.5% by the end of next year.

You mean the unemployment rate will go down soon after Republicans control the house??

Palin 2012

 

[Puddles]

Even 7.5% by the tail end of 2011 is highly optimistic imo. This economy needs to be producing over 200k jobs a month just to even start making any meaningful dents in the UE number. We're getting well below half that. I don't see companies doing hiring bonanzas while they're profiting by cutting their payrolls to the bone. What's the incentive to hire?

Man, I hate to sound like a broken record, but if we just got rid of salaried employment for all but senior management...

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Even 7.5% by the tail end of 2011 is highly optimistic imo. This economy needs to be producing over 200k jobs a month just to even start making any meaningful dents in the UE number. We're getting well below half that. I don't see companies doing hiring bonanzas while they're profiting by cutting their payrolls to the bone. What's the incentive to hire?

I actually edited my post, changed it to 8.5%, then thought that number sounded strange, and changed it back to 7.5%.

You mean the unemployment rate will go down soon after Republicans control the house??

I think in the next coming year or two, it'll be left up to the private sector to bring the UR down since nothing in Congress will get accomplished.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Maybe businesses aren't hiring just to ensure democrats and Obama get ousted.

/tinhat

 

[Aaron Strife]

reilo: [new polls]
Diablos: "We're doomed!"
GhaleonB: (polite agreement)
ToxicAdam: (polite disagreement)
PantherLotus: "That's a logical fallacy! But I agree!"
Chichikov: (polite dissertation)

Kittonwy: "ObamaCare is a socialist takeover! (I'm from Canada, btw)"
mckmas8808: "Here's an article. Obama does everything right!"
platypotamus: (polite agreement)
LovingSteam: (polite agreement)
PhoenixDark: (polite disagreement)
Incognito: "Not to sound like Diablos, but we really are fucked."

BigSicily: "Laffer Curve!"
speculawyer: (polite dissertation)
empty vessel: (mind exploding epic novel)
RustyNails: (polite agreement)
Aaron Strife (polite agreement)

Aaron Strife is more like

Aaron Strife: (posts new poll) "Democrats are down by 12 in this poll, but we'll win 20 seats in the senate"

also assuming (polite agreement) is with empty vessel. bigsicily don't know shit :lol

 

[mckmas8808]

Posting stats of last thread (50 posts or more):




Damn, I had no idea I posted so much.

How did you beat me? ARGH! Not going to let it happen this thread.

 

[ShOcKwAvE]

Maybe businesses aren't hiring just to ensure democrats and Obama get ousted.

/tinhat

When Repubs have those private conference calls with their major donors (CEOs), I don't think it's too far-fetched that they encourage "holding off" on job hires.

 

[ToxicAdam]

^^ :lol

 

[gcubed]

^^ :lol

agreed

 

[RustyNails]

reilo: [new polls]
Diablos: "We're doomed!"
GhaleonB: (polite agreement)
ToxicAdam: (polite disagreement)
PantherLotus: "That's a logical fallacy! But I agree!"
Chichikov: (polite dissertation)

Kittonwy: "ObamaCare is a socialist takeover! (I'm from Canada, btw)"
mckmas8808: "Here's an article. Obama does everything right!"
platypotamus: (polite agreement)
LovingSteam: (polite agreement)
PhoenixDark: (polite disagreement)
Incognito: "Not to sound like Diablos, but we really are fucked."

BigSicily: "Laffer Curve!"
speculawyer: (polite dissertation)
empty vessel: (mind exploding epic novel)
RustyNails: (polite agreement)
Aaron Strife (polite agreement)

Oh god, how did I miss this? :lol :lol

 

[speculawyer]

BigSicily: "Laffer Curve!"
speculawyer: (polite dissertation)
empty vessel: (mind exploding epic novel)
RustyNails: (polite agreement)
Aaron Strife (polite agreement)

Meh . . . I don't think I was polite enough and I regret that. But I get really angry with sophistry.

 

[mckmas8808]

reilo: [new polls]
Diablos: "We're doomed!"
GhaleonB: (polite agreement)
ToxicAdam: (polite disagreement)
PantherLotus: "That's a logical fallacy! But I agree!"
Chichikov: (polite dissertation)

Kittonwy: "ObamaCare is a socialist takeover! (I'm from Canada, btw)"
mckmas8808: "Here's an article. Obama does everything right!"
platypotamus: (polite agreement)
LovingSteam: (polite agreement)
PhoenixDark: (polite disagreement)
Incognito: "Not to sound like Diablos, but we really are fucked."

BigSicily: "Laffer Curve!"
speculawyer: (polite dissertation)
empty vessel: (mind exploding epic novel)
RustyNails: (polite agreement)
Aaron Strife (polite agreement)

Why are you still believing that I think Obama does everything right? I thought you were trying to get better, but you are still the professional schmuck that you've always been.

Sad as shit to see a poster that seems smart but can't tell the difference between someone posting an article with decent to good news in it and someone that thinks Obama does everything well.

SMH.

 

[PantherLotus]

Why are you still believing that I think Obama does everything right? I thought you were trying to get better, but you are still the professional schmuck that you've always been.

Sad as shit to see a poster that seems smart but can't tell the difference between someone posting an article with decent to good news in it and someone that thinks Obama does everything well.

SMH.

These are clearly stereotypical expected responses, dude. Chill out.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Why are you still believing that I think Obama does everything right? I thought you were trying to get better, but you are still the professional schmuck that you've always been.

Sad as shit to see a poster that seems smart but can't tell the difference between someone posting an article with decent to good news in it and someone that thinks Obama does everything well.

SMH.

Its ok lol, he has me politely agreeing.

 

[Puddles]

When Repubs have those private conference calls with their major donors (CEOs), I don't think it's too far-fetched that they encourage "holding off" on job hires.

Depends on how many each firm was ready to hire. I can't see this being a huge number, honestly.

 

[speculawyer]

American People Hire High-Powered Lobbyist To Push Interests In Congress

http://i51.tinypic.com/2j16k1w.jpg

Source: The Onion

Edit: And for more "funny in that it makes you want to curl up in a ball and weep", Here's Jon Stewart taking on our new foreclosure based economy. A must watch.
Video here: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-7-2010/foreclosure-crisis

Damn . . . the Onion just really nails it sometimes.

 

[mckmas8808]

Even 7.5% by the tail end of 2011 is highly optimistic imo. This economy needs to be producing over 200k jobs a month just to even start making any meaningful dents in the UE number. We're getting well below half that. I don't see companies doing hiring bonanzas while they're profiting by cutting their payrolls to the bone. What's the incentive to hire?

:lol

I think at best we'll be at 8.5% unemployment by 2012. This recovery is so damn slow that I'm not sure how people will feel in the summer of 2012 if UE is 8.5%. I'm not sure if they will feel like that's good momentum or if they will feel like it's not fast enough.

These are clearly stereotypical expected responses, dude. Chill out.

Oh my bad. *tips hat*

 

[NullPointer]

Its ok lol, he has me politely agreeing.

I demand representation!

(not really, I'm still a lurker for the most part. watching. from above.)

 

[state-of-the-art]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/143468/Likely-Voters-Demographically-Typical-Skew-Conservative.aspx

Wow, really? Their LV voter model has 54% of people leaning "conservative" and lean 57% Republican for these upcoming midterms? That's 14% higher than their 1994 scenario.

What? I don't even...how the....

*head explodes*

 

[mckmas8808]

Welcome to the anti-stimulus
By Ezra Klein | October 8, 2010; 8:34 AM ET

The good news: The private sector gained 64,000 jobs in September. The bad news? The public sector lost 159,000. And they weren't all census jobs, either. Local governments fired 76,000 workers. In other words, this is the first jobs report in recent months that isn't driven by census layoffs. If there were no census jobs at all, the report would still be negative.

In other words, welcome to the anti-stimulus.

The government is now impeding an economic recovery. But it's not for the reasons you often hear. It's not because of debt or because of taxes. Nor has it scared the private sector into timidity. It's because, at the state and local level, it's firing people. There are more than 14 million Americans looking for work right now -- to say nothing of the 9.5 million who have been forced into part-time jobs when they want, and need, full-time work -- and the government just added 159,000 more to the pool. Consider this: If we only counted private-sector jobs, we'd have had positive jobs reports for the last nine months. As it is, public-sector losses have wiped out private-sector gains for the past four months.

It doesn't need to be like this. The government can't make the private sector invest. They can't demand that Wal-Mart start hiring. They can offer incentives, and tax breaks, and encouragement, but that's it. The same cannot be said when it comes to public sector jobs. The government can, if it's willing to run deficits, keep those workers employed. But Senate Republicans, alongside some conservative Democrats, have decided to make the government pro-cyclical: Rather than fighting the downturn in the business cycle, the government is now accelerating it.

And don't ignore the effect this has on private businesses. They're not going to hire new workers or invest in more capacity if jobs aren't coming back, because without jobs, there's no demand. But because the federal government has decided against backing up state and local governments, the bleeding continues, and that scares businesses away from investing in recovery. We create the stimulus that helped the economy survive 2008 and 2009, and we've created the anti-stimulus that's keeping it from recovering in 2010.

​

##############


I'd LOVE for a conservative to come in here and debate why the federal government shouldn't spot the local and state governments some money in order to stop this governmental job bleeding.

The charts are right there as clear as day. They're easy to understand and they aren't BS charts. All the progressives and most Dems want to do is stabilize the state and local governments so that they can stop cutting important job positions.

If you conservatives are against this can you please explain why?

 

[ToxicAdam]

Similar thing happened during the early 80's recession. Which is not surprisingly the last really bad recession we had.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/20/us/20states.html

Fifty-five percent of local government employees work for public schools, according to data from the Labor Department. At the state level, 46 percent of employees work in education.

Is it any coincidence that this spike in local job losses happened when school gets back in session?

I'd LOVE for a conservative to come in here and debate why the federal government shouldn't spot the local and state governments some money in order to stop this governmental job bleeding

Not enough has been done?

The federal government stepped in to prevent some job losses. In August, President Barack Obama signed into law a plan to provide $26 billion to help states pay Medicaid bills and forestall firings of teachers and other public workers.

The $268 million in federal employment aid allotted to New Jersey may have come too late to help this year, said Frank Belluscio, spokesman for the New Jersey School Boards Association.

“It appears that the majority of districts are going to use that next school year,” Belluscio said in a telephone interview today.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-10-08/local-u-s-public-employment-falls-to-four-year-low.html

 

[thekad]

Possibility of a second "stimulus" or whatever they're going to call it in the lame-duck session?

 

[Skiptastic]

And don't ignore the effect this has on private businesses. They're not going to hire new workers or invest in more capacity if jobs aren't coming back, because without jobs, there's no demand. But because the federal government has decided against backing up state and local governments, the bleeding continues, and that scares businesses away from investing in recovery. We create the stimulus that helped the economy survive 2008 and 2009, and we've created the anti-stimulus that's keeping it from recovering in 2010.

Wait, so private business won't hire or invest in capacity if government jobs aren't coming back? Or if jobs in general aren't coming back? If it's the former, then I'm confused because that's saying "We won't higher until our tax burden is greater!" and if it's the latter, then cutting back on government jobs is necessary because apparently government can't sustain on the lowered tax revenues from private business.

I mean, if Ezra is really going to say that government jobs are needed to keep the unemployment level down, then that applies not only during a recession, but at all times, and moves dangerously close to government guaranteed work.

Just some random thoughts I had from reading that. I'm sure someone will explain it to me.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Possibility of a second "stimulus" or whatever they're going to call it in the lame-duck session?

I don't know, those seem to be painted with a negative light, despite them somewhat working.

 

[ToxicAdam]

FREE PIMPWERX

 

[eznark]

When Repubs have those private conference calls with their major donors (CEOs), I don't think it's too far-fetched that they encourage "holding off" on job hires.

This is my favorite post ever. Ever.

 

[NullPointer]

This is my favorite post ever. Ever.

My mother believes this stuff too. The rich elite are holding off on a wave or hiring because they're upset at Obama and want their tax breaks.

Then again, she also tried to convince me that Al Queda was going to invade the US, by way of Chinese troops crossing the Mexican border. So...

 

[timetokill]

When Repubs have those private conference calls with their major donors (CEOs), I don't think it's too far-fetched that they encourage "holding off" on job hires.

They refuse to give us our jerbs!!

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

My mother believes this stuff too. The rich elite are holding off on a wave or hiring because they're upset at Obama and want their tax breaks.

Then again, she also tried to convince me that Al Queda was going to invade the US, by way of Chinese troops crossing the Mexican border. So...

:lol :lol :lol That would make an awesome new season of 24.

 

[eznark]

My mother believes this stuff too. The rich elite are holding off on a wave or hiring because they're upset at Obama and want their tax breaks.

Then again, she also tried to convince me that Al Queda was going to invade the US, by way of Chinese troops crossing the Mexican border. So...

Is presupposes this crazy ass world populated by crazy ass people who care more about who is in office than improving their bottom line.

The fact is, businesses (for the most part) donate to the front-runner.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsG1M6KdE_A

=/ I don't even know what this is

 

[empty vessel]

This is my favorite post ever. Ever.

I don't know of any reason to believe it's happening now (the government has by and largely faithfully appeased business interests), but there are such things as capital strikes by organized capitalists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_strike
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/07/26/capital-strike/

It's one of the few times they act on fundamental, long-term interests. Of course, those interests are strictly their own interests, and not the interests of the greater society.

 

[eznark]

I don't know of any reason to believe it's happening now (the government has by and largely faithfully appeased business interests), but there are such things as capital strikes by organized capitalists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_strike
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/07/26/capital-strike/

That isn't the hilarious part. The hilarious part is that all the CEO's around the country chat with Michael Steele on conference calls about their dastardly plans.

and yeah, yeah...capitalism is evil blah blah blah

 

[Salazar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsG1M6KdE_A

=/ I don't even know what this is

Excruciating mumbling from a git persuaded that he has oratorical powers.

He is 'transcending' ? Anime transformation sequence incoming ?

 

[Jackson50]

Paladino's slim chances are non-existent. His unfavorables are now 49 percent.

Link

That is not surprising. I listened to an interview with him on All Things Considered, and I found him instantly aversive. He was rude, irascible, and seemed obtuse. Honestly, good job, New York.

 

[Jackson50]

NSA Director is resigning: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/donilon-to-replace-jones-as-national-security-adviser/

Jones is certainly knowledgeable, but he was apparently unsuitable as APNSA. And I think it was obvious Obama selected him primarily because of Jones's military credentials. Otherwise, Donilon should perform better if only because he will be more involved-noted, Gates's disagreement with that assessment.

 

[Chichikov]

Similar thing happened during the early 80's recession. Which is not surprisingly the last really bad recession we had.

The 80s recession is vastly different than the one we're experiencing right now.
We might be seeing similar results (at least in some aspects) but for very different reasons.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Similar thing happened during the early 80's recession. Which is not surprisingly the last really bad recession we had.

Well, we need to hire more FBI agents to target those brown people.

 

[Jackson50]

Well, we need to hire more FBI agents to target those brown people.

Wait...are you not training for the FBI? Nice, use PoliGAF as a platform to push your agenda. Unbelievable.

 

[NullPointer]

Well, we need to hire more FBI agents to target those brown people.

Just stay away from us blue people and its all good.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Actually, I have to be careful as to what I say on the internet since I do want to do federal law enforcement work. :lol

 

[ToxicAdam]

The 80s recession is vastly different than the one we're experiencing right now.
We might be seeing similar results (at least in some aspects) but for very different reasons.

You are very right, and I don't mean to draw a 1:1 conclusion. But they share a similarity in that they both saw very sudden drops in tax revenues due to massive job losses which caused local/state budgets to constrict and cut workforce as a response to that unexpected event.

I think that's what we are seeing now. The federal money should help alleviate the problem next year. Although, many of the jobs that will be lost this year probably aren't coming back.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

The only way we got out of the 80s recession was a result of a fed's monetary policies.

Not sure how we're going to get out of this one.

 

[Jackson50]

Actually, I have to be careful as to what I say on the internet since I do want to do federal law enforcement work. :lol

Well, I have already e-mailed a link of this thread to Directors Mueller, Clark, and, most importantly, Sullivan. Sorry.

 

[mckmas8808]

You are very right, and I don't mean to draw a 1:1 conclusion. But they share a similarity in that they both saw very sudden drops in tax revenues due to massive job losses which caused local/state budgets to constrict and cut workforce as a response to that unexpected event.

I think that's what we are seeing now. The federal money should help alleviate the problem next year. Although, many of the jobs that will be lost this year probably aren't coming back.

Yeah it looks like we already missed the boat this year for state and local government jobs.

I'm hoping this means jobs next year will start to pick up on the government side along with the private sector. Maybe sometime next year we can see the unemployment rate go below 9%.

 

[speculawyer]

I'd LOVE for a conservative to come in here and debate why the federal government shouldn't spot the local and state governments some money in order to stop this governmental job bleeding.

The charts are right there as clear as day. They're easy to understand and they aren't BS charts. All the progressives and most Dems want to do is stabilize the state and local governments so that they can stop cutting important job positions.

If you conservatives are against this can you please explain why?

I'll take it up . . . . because we can't run endless massive deficits. Period. We shot a wad with the stimulus and we really don't have the ammo to do it again. Structural deficits will sink us. I complained about deficits during the Bush years and I'll complain now. The private economy has shrunk and the public sector needs to shrink along with it.

It sucks. It really really sucks. But you can't have the private sector shrink yet keep the public sector the same size. The money is just not there. I'm not saying we need to massively reduce the size of government like some naive T-party person . . . we just need to keep it about the same size relative to the rest of the economy.

Of course, I think we need to carefully prioritize things. With Iraq winding down and no super-power to fight, we should scale back the military a bit. And savings there could be used to keep some domestic civil servants in their jobs.


And speaking of scaling things down, other things also need to scale down a bit along with the rest of the economy. Healthcare costs need to come down. Hey healthcare biz, people are struggling. Your charges can't keep going up while the rest of the economy struggles.

And higher education . . . you too. Stop with the runaway tuition that increases much faster than inflation. You've got huge endowments. Just stop with excessive spending on so many vanity things and become more efficient. Don't forget that your principal job is to teach students . . . not to do research, have big football teams, build fancy buildings, etc.


Edit: If I thought this downturn were just a blip on the radar, a temporary recession, I could see keeping them in their jobs. But I really think we are stuck in a rut. Decades of outsourcing, trade deficits, debt based expansion, and rising energy prices have finally caught up with us. The economy is weak yet oil is at $82/barrel and close to 4% of GDP. It is really hard for the economy to grow with that.

2/3s of that oil money goes out of the country.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

If Republicans hate the idea of such a big government and its services, then that would mean states would have to increase taxes to pay for their government programs.

 

[Byakuya769]

This is my favorite post ever. Ever.

It is silly. Then again, we have entire articles written in "reputable" sources about the possibility of businesses holding off on hiring because of taxation uncertainty.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

If Republicans hate the idea of such a big government and its services, then that would mean states would have to increase taxes to pay for their government programs.

Or just get rid of the government programs.