June Jobs Report: Election implications

[CSVol]

Real estate bubble.

Banks bubble, spending bubble, cheap money. Faux equity funded jillions in our economy.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

If you're saying tax breaks encouraged residential construction I might agree (slightly*). But if that's your only evidence, why were they extended? Faux equity funding doesn't seem to reflect job creation.

*I say slightly b/c construction in TX hasn't skipped a beat since moving here in 2005, but I don't know if this is a reflection of state gov't practices, demand or what. It isn't a valid example of overall employment trends.

 

[rjd970]

I recognize this idea is weird, but truthfully why is it any weirder than the notion of a God in the first place? Where did God come from?

It is more weird because it is just christianity plus some even more ludicrous nonsense. One becoming God, garden of eden in Missouri, etc...it is mindboggling what people actually believe to be truth.

 

[BigPapaVol]

If you're saying tax breaks encouraged residential construction I might agree (slightly*). But if that's your only evidence, why were they extended? Faux equity funding doesn't seem to reflect job creation.

*I say slightly b/c construction in TX hasn't skipped a beat since moving here in 2005, but I don't know if this is a reflection of state gov't practices, demand or what. It isn't a valid example of overall employment trends.

So you don't see that the enormous amount of faux real estate equity rippled mightily through the entire economy via leveraged spending? Wealthy made piles of money coming and going because money was freely client and you could overborrow on anything because valuations were sky high, primarily based on interest rates.

We recovered from the tech bubble explosion and 9/11 recession amazingly quickly due to huge rate moves and real estate capital.

Maintaining those rates was a separate decision, but it was based on fear of exacerbating the problems caused by the imploded RE market.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[vol4eva]

It would seem tough getting reelected if the economy is still the same but when you take a look at the disaster that is the GOP field he very well could, and at this point it's Obama's to lose.

 

[n_huffhines]

If you're saying tax breaks encouraged residential construction I might agree (slightly*). But if that's your only evidence, why were they extended? Faux equity funding doesn't seem to reflect job creation.

*I say slightly b/c construction in TX hasn't skipped a beat since moving here in 2005, but I don't know if this is a reflection of state gov't practices, demand or what. It isn't a valid example of overall employment trends.

Almost nobody is building homes right now in Utah. Nobody is landscaping either. That's 2 industries where employment has suffered miserably. I worked 2 different jobs that no longer exist because of the housing crisis.

 

[CSVol]

So you don't see that the enormous amount of faux real estate equity rippled mightily through the entire economy via leveraged spending? Wealthy made piles of money coming and going because money was freely client and you could overborrow on anything because valuations were sky high, primarily based on interest rates.
We recovered from the tech bubble explosion and 9/11 recession amazingly quickly due to huge rate moves and real estate capital.

Maintaining those rates was a separate decision, but it was based on fear of exacerbating the problems caused by the imploded RE market.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Bolded explains my dismay as earnings didn't tricle back to the economy at large. This fact also illuminates my skepticism at extneding the cuts. The renewal last year was out of the shadow of the housing bubble. How do you justify them going forward? If cuts positively affects the economy at large, where are the results?

 

[n_huffhines]

Bolded explains my dismay as earnings didn't tricle back to the economy at large. This fact also illuminates my skepticism at extneding the cuts. The renewal last year was out of the shadow of the housing bubble. How do you justify them going forward? If cuts positively affects the economy at large, where are the results?

The problem is there are so many things going on in an economy that you can't really play that game. You may have tax cuts, but at the same time be implementing other policies that damage or bolster the economy so it distorts the results. I could cite data points, but then I'd be no better than the Keynesians. They have one data point they bank on (post WWII, which ironically at the time the Keynesians had predicted would not be a boom period).

 

[CSVol]

The problem is there are so many things going on in an economy that you can't really play that game. You may have tax cuts, but at the same time be implementing other policies that damage or bolster the economy so it distorts the results. I could cite data points, but then I'd be no better than the Keynesians. They have one data point they bank on (post WWII, which ironically at the time the Keynesians had predicted would not be a boom period).

I completely agree and if I'm not wrong you were one that intelligently pointed out there was no magic presidential jobs lever. My point is, congruent to yours, that while BO's measures haven't produced results in 3 years, where are the results of the tax breaks in 10?

 

[n_huffhines]

I completely agree and if I'm not wrong you were one that intelligently pointed out there was no magic presidential jobs lever. My point is, congruent to yours, that while BO's measures haven't produced results in 3 years, where are the results of the tax breaks in 10?

Weren't the tax breaks in '10 mere extensions of previous tax breaks? Maybe I'm confused. Not sure on that, but if they were you shouldn't expect a stimulus effect.

 

[CSVol]

Weren't the tax breaks in '10 mere extensions of previous tax breaks? Maybe I'm confused. Not sure on that, but if they were you shouldn't expect a stimulus effect.

They were. If there was an expected stimulus effect that justified them in the first place, why not now?

 

[BigPapaVol]

They were. If there was an expected stimulus effect that justified them in the first place, why not now?

There wasn't an expected stimulative impact of maintaining the status quo. Continuing them avoided the predictable negative impact of reversing them.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[n_huffhines]

There wasn't an expected stimulative impact of maintaining the status quo. Continuing them avoided the predictable negative impact of reversing them.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

This.

 

[justingroves]

It's a bit of a farce because so much of this is out of the President's control. There's no magical "create jobs" lever. My issue is the president thinks he can miraculously create jobs with the wave of his hand and the results have been wasteful.

I have a bigger problem with the dumbasses that believed he could magically wave his hand and create jobs.

 

[tvolsfan]

I have a bigger problem with the dumbasses that believed he could magically wave his hand and create jobs.

My problem is with the people who bought into things like 'change' and 'hope' and 'yes we can' without even having a damn clue what he was going to do.

 

[Cartervol]

My problem is with the people who bought into things like 'change' and 'hope' and 'yes we can' without even having a damn clue what he was going to do.

That kind of sums it up in a nutshell. It was a targeted audience, but Bush made it easy anyway. Just like Obama is making it easy for just one decent candidate to come in and mop the floor with him. I just wish that guy would show up.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

other than her personal opinion regarding gay marriage, what "fundamentalist" views does Bachmann espouse that are so radical?

that said, the Tea Party (as a whole) is being damaged by allowing itself to now be overrun with social conservatives. The economy should be the only campaign issue, but the SC's are going sabotage the R nomination by demanding a candidate pass some kind of ridiculous purity test.

If anything, the Tea Party needs to go the opposite direction of the social conservatives on a few issues (reefer). But correct, in the ideal situation, whole ever the candidate is should be focused squarely on the economy.

 

[n_huffhines]

My problem is with the people who bought into things like 'change' and 'hope' and 'yes we can' without even having a damn clue what he was going to do.

The problem is he didn't do what he SAID he was going to do. Not that he had a specific economic plan mapped out, but if he had stuck to his guns about bringing the troops home, shutting down Guantanamo, ending the patriot act, etc., that would've taken care of the "change" part in the opinion of his constituents. We're pissed because the economy sucks. They're pissed because he didn't follow through on promises. He managed to alienate people on both sides of the spectrum and that makes his re-election prospect dim.

 

[vol4eva]

The problem is he didn't do what he SAID he was going to do. Not that he had a specific economic plan mapped out, but if he had stuck to his guns about bringing the troops home, shutting down Guantanamo, ending the patriot act, etc., that would've taken care of the "change" part in the opinion of his constituents. We're pissed because the economy sucks. They're pissed because he didn't follow through on promises. He managed to alienate people on both sides of the spectrum and that makes his re-election prospect dim.

He's not bringing the troops home?

 

[n_huffhines]

He's not bringing the troops home?

Can't tell if you are being sarcastic. He brings some home, and sends more out. He said the first thing he would do as POTUS was to bring the troops home from Afghanistan and you can "take that to the bank".

YouTube - ‪Obama promises to bring the troops home from Afghanistan.‬‏

This is pretty funny, too. Though I would say Obama makes 7 "broken promises" rather than "lies":

YouTube - ‪Obama Lies 7 Times In Under 2 Minutes!‬‏

 

[n_huffhines]

BTW, when Obama was promising hope and change...to bring the troops home, to end Gauntanamo, and end the Patriot Act, etc. I was all for that, but never really believed he would do that ****. I was hoping to be surprised, but it didn't happen.

 

[vol4eva]

He's bringing home all of the troops from Iraq by the end of this year. As for Afghanistan, when he took office there was a Taliban resurgence. If you really think all the troops were coming home within a couple years you were living in a fantasy land. And since when has any president kept all their promises? To single Obama out for not keeping every promise is utterly retarded.

 

[sjt18]

18,000 jobs created. Reported unemployment rising to 9.2 %.

There is no way Obama can be elected unless this starts turning around very soon. He might as well not even be the democratic nomination.

No excuses. It will have been four years, and he would have failed on all of his promises, been wrong on all his job creation predictions. Jobs really are one of the few issues that really matter above all others. Gay marriage, abortion, even medicare-- who gives a **** if you can't pay your bills or give your family a decent life?

Anyone disagree on this being his downfall?

Yes. Frankly I do. Polls continue to show that most of the public continues to blame Bush. The MSM has supported that idea. They have failed to report aggressively about the bad economy... indeed they have couched bad news in language that blunts the impact. Apparently, many are continuing to buy the subtle message that better days are just around the corner.

The GOP for their part have done a horrible job of pinning this economy on Obama. Everytime he says "Bush" they go mute.

I think he is very vulnerable because of unemployment... but it would not surprise me at all if he won with high unemployment. He will continue to say his policies are working and will work if given time... in spite of clear recent and historical evidence to the contrary. He will continue to try to triangulate while also engaging in heavy demagogury of any proposal to do anything but "raise taxes on the wealthy". Out of one side of his mouth "all sides have to compromise and sacrifice their sacred cows... out of the other "the deficit cannot be cut on the backs of the poor and elderly".

He's not done by a long shot. If the GOP selects someone like Romney who cannot draw clear differences between his own ideals and policies and Obama's... Obama will win IMO.

 

[n_huffhines]

He's bringing home all of the troops from Iraq by the end of this year. As for Afghanistan, when he took office there was a Taliban resurgence. If you really think all the troops were coming home within a couple years you were living in a fantasy land. And since when has any president kept all their promises? To single Obama out for not keeping every promise is utterly retarded.

There's always something.

So was Obama in fantasy land when he claimed he could do it first order of business? What about when he said in the first 18 months? Was he in fantasy land then, too? It's weird that you would say I was the one in fantasy land, because I said I never believed that he would.

Who says I'm singling him out? There's not a president in my lifetime that I like.

So you're sure Obama's bringing the troops home from Iraq by the end of this year? Does this put you in fantasy land? I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[sjt18]

He's bringing home all of the troops from Iraq by the end of this year. As for Afghanistan, when he took office there was a Taliban resurgence. If you really think all the troops were coming home within a couple years you were living in a fantasy land. And since when has any president kept all their promises? To single Obama out for not keeping every promise is utterly retarded.

He's bringing the troops home from Iraq just a little earlier than the time table planned and prepared by Bush and Rumsfeld. His ability to do this is completely predicated on the success of the Bush Admin plan. All of the troops will not be out of Iraq this year BTW.

We can argue that the US should or should not have gone to Iraq. However once there, the operation was very successful. The US will leave a country successfully governing itself under a form of democracy. Iraq can police and protect itself. Factions are working together that once had to be ruled with an iron fist to prevent wholesale civil war.

That outcome does not appear likely in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Obama's policies and announced "timelines" are folly... but those countries are also a different kind of problem. Iraq/Assyria has a long history of civilization and sound gov't. Afghanistan/Pakistan do not. They have a long history of warfare either with outsiders or among tribal factions.

 

[sjt18]

FWIW, if the GOP would make the case, Obama's biggest weakness isn't unemployment. It is his coziness with "bigs". Big labor has profited from his admin and gotten gov't favor. Big business has also.

This is a guy whose policies have been antagonistic at best toward small business. He bailed out "big" finance... then supported laws that punished small banks that were a minimal part of the bubble that smashed the economy.

He has sent OSHA and the EPA on witch hunts among small and medium sized businesses while bailing big companies out and giving them regulatory favor.

Obamacare directly targets small/medium businesses... except those who financially support powerful Dems of course. IMO, Obama could be defeated on the issue of the exceptions that have been granted from the healthcare law alone... especially to the extent that they have gone to companies that have supported him and other powerful Dems.


Obama is a guy with knee jerk favoritism toward centralized power. That is contradictory to the American people. Define him as an elitist who favors the powerful over the common man... and beat him like a drum.