Moderator: Bill Glasheen
Glenn wrote:On a different note, a current poll shows veterans favor Obama over Romney by a strong margin because they are concerned by Romney's hawkish retoric. Weary warriors favor Obama over Romney, poll shows
Bill Glasheen wrote:As for the unemployment rate, that peaked on Obama's watch. It peaked far above where he said it would (he predicted a max of 8.1%) - even ignoring the precipitous dropping of the labor force participation rate.
The important word here is projection. The economic analysis wasn’t a promise, it was an educated assessment of how events might unfold. And it came with heavy disclaimers.
"It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error," the report states. "There is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity."
There's also a footnote that goes along with the chart that states: "Forecasts of the unemployment rate without the recovery plan vary substantially. Some private forecasters anticipate unemployment rates as high as 11% in the absence of action."
Romney didn't use the word "promise" as Boehner, Cantor and others did when we checked the same claim previously, but the meaning is the same, that Obama was offering some sort of guarantee the stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent. The administration never characterized it that way and included plenty of disclaimers saying the predictions had "significant margins of error" and a higher degree of uncertainty due to a recession that is "unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity." In short, it was an economic projection with warnings of a high margin for error, not a take-it-to-the-bank pledge of an upper limit on unemployment.
People are hurting, Glenn. You don't think they are?
Bill Glasheen wrote:Consider the source - MSNBC. Would you believe anything I quoted from Fox News? I can't listen to either one of them. They are mouthpieces for the Democrats and Republicans respectively.
And what matters is likely voters.
Glenn wrote:You first statement is a good plug for Obama, since as you say he halted the rise in unemployment (during his first year even) and presided over its subsequent decrease.
Bill Glasheen wrote:He ignored the economy and instead spent a considerable amount of political capital passing a trillion dollar health care bill that the public didn't ask for
and a majority of voters disapprove of.
The negative effect of this will manifest itself for a considerable amount of time unless the Supreme Court kills it. (I give it a 50/50 shot at surviving.)
He interfered with a more natural bankruptcy of GM. Instead he worked to preserve the very Union control of that organization which was a major reason for it failing. GM and perhaps Chrysler as well will likely fail again at the next recession. In their present forms they cannot compete with "Detroit south."
He bought into the Krugman/Keynesian economic nonsense which suggests a government can spend its way out of a recession. All he did was spend a ton of money in the public sector as well as throw money at pet "green" projects (Solyndra anyone??) - both of which competed with the very economy this government needs to generate tax revenue. And now that the debt is getting out of control...
He chased drilling out of The Gulf, killed a pipeline project, and harassed our domestic coal industry with onerous "carbon tax" crap. If it wasn't for the explosive growth of natural gas - an asset he's done nothing to help our economy exploit - we'd be even more dependent on Middle East oil in the future. Dependence on Middle East oil leads to trade deficits and expensive wars - the hidden government subsidy of petroleum.
An independent study conducted by the Cornell ILR Global Labor Institute reports that the crude oil routed to the Gulf Coast will end up being exported to Asia, and not contribute to energy independence or national security.
Bill Glasheen wrote:Moral of the story... treat "expert opinion" with the same level of confidence as a believable myth. If it's all you've got, well it's all you've got. But you may do just as well consulting Carnac.
Voters are ticked. Incumbents are toast. It's not about party, it's about kicking the bums out. It happened to Congress in 2010. It's happening in Europe and in the U.S. in primaries today. November's going to be ugly.
I am right and you know it, Glenn. I'm telling the truth about both parties, and you are being Obama's shill.
Issues, Glenn. Issues!
P.S. - Interesting spin on the pipeline, but... no. And I don't have a problem with oil going out on the world market. Flood the supply and the price goes down for everyone. Simple economics. Plus... it can be cheaper not to ship it, and you're ready to use domestic the first time OPEC cops an attitude (such as during Carter's period of stagflation). And - MOST IMPORTANTLY - we won't feel compelled to go to war over Middle East oil. No problem.
The faithful, predominantly Republican voters of the big 3rd turned out in higher proportions than their peers in the 1st and 2nd Congressional Districts.
Turnout in each of the district's 75 counties averaged nearly 28 percent, according to an analysis of county-by-county statistics produced by the Secretary of State's Office. That compares with less than 25 percent turnout in the state's other two districts.
And in many individual counties turnout was much higher. In Cherry County, where Fischer owns a ranch with her family, nearly 50 percent of voters cast ballots.
Fischer was able to wrest the GOP nomination from front-runner Jon Bruning by carrying 46 percent of the Republican vote in the 3rd District, while putting in strong showings in the 1st and 2nd Districts.
Combined vote totals for the 18 counties that make up the 1st and 2nd Districts show that Fischer got 37.4 percent of the vote there, while Bruning got 38.1 percent.
In my opinion - and the opinion of many - focusing on social issues in a manner which divides us as a country is a deliberate and inappropriate distraction from that which affects us all.
Bill Glasheen wrote:And portraying this as a "liberal" vs. a "conservative" issue is ill-informed at best.
Bill Glasheen wrote:I was just on another blog where I reamed someone a new one for using inappropriate language.
It seems it's OK for some to use bigoted language because they... well... their poo doesn't stink. But if someone else uses it, they're racist or homophobic. Sorry, but I don't buy it. There's one protocol that we all follow. There is no privileged class in our country. Jefferson wrote a declaration which articulated it. We fought a war first with England and then with each other to codify it. And those who don't get it - from all walks of life - will continue to stub their pride over it.
No, I didn't delete the entire post. I thought it informative in a way perhaps not intended by the author. Yes, I manually applied an editor.
Apparently some are also confused about the political spectrum. Perhaps another posting of the Nolan Chart would be informative.
Note that this is a new spin on the original chart. The red/green adds a third "technology" dimension to the spectrum.
The political debate lately has been whether the needs of our country are better served by focusing on the economic and/or technology dimensions vs. a personal liberty dimension. Let me be clear. They're ALL important. However right now everyone of every color and choice of lifestyle is suffering economically. In my opinion - and the opinion of many - focusing on social issues in a manner which divides us as a country is a deliberate and inappropriate distraction from that which affects us all.
And portraying this as a "liberal" vs. a "conservative" issue is ill-informed at best.
TSDguy wrote:I'd love to see the political party manifesto that defines denying people civil liberties as "conservative".
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests