Obamanoimcs...update

Obamanoimcs...update (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MrRodgers -> Obamanoimcs...update (7/18/2013 6:13:47 AM)
If you drive along a lovely street of nice homes in north Wheaton, one will spot a yard sign planted in a front lawn that says, “Obamanomics. Had Enough?" The sign is odd for several reasons. First, it is not an election year. Second, Barack Obama will be President for three and a half more years, so there is no alternative to “Obamanomics” in the near future. Third, and the most curious part about this sign, what economic system would the owner and displayer of this yard sign prefer to “Obamanomics?” It was just announced that June 2013 showed the largest surplus ever for that month, a record $117 billion. That means the government is taking in more revenue than it is spending, even though taxes are at their lowest marks. In fact, President Obama is spending fewer government dollars than any President since Eisenhower. By the way, the deficit is shrinking steadily, (down 2/3) so if any Congressman uses the “deficit” as an excuse for further budget cuts, they are being disingenuous at best and outright lying at worst. Employment is rising slowly, but steadily. Wall Street seems extremely content with record high closings of the Dow Jones. These are all verifiable facts. "Obamanomics” isn’t helping everyone. Austerity and sequester cuts are hurting the poor and the middle class, cutting needed services. Still, given the yard sign is placed on the lawn of a nice home on a lovely street in Wheaton, it seems the owner of the sign should change it to “Obamanomics. I Want More!” Here

JeffBC -> RE: Obamanoimcs...update (7/18/2013 6:34:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Employment is rising slowly, but steadily. Wall Street seems extremely content with record high closings of the Dow Jones. These are all verifiable facts. "Obamanomics” isn’t helping everyone. Austerity and sequester cuts are hurting the poor and the middle class, cutting needed services. Still, given the yard sign is placed on the lawn of a nice home on a lovely street in Wheaton, it seems the owner of the sign should change it to “Obamanomics. I Want More!” I'm long done with him and his economic policies. Not, mind you, that I think the Republicans have substantially different economic policies. I think both parties agree that we should steal everything we can from those who cannot defend themselves (which is damned near everyone nowadays). The big question is which particular set of rich guys get the loot. "Employment is rising slowly" Yes, but are we talking half-time, minimum wage, no health coverage Walmart jobs? In other words, is the standard of living for the poor and middle class rising or falling? (hint, see below) Wall Street seems extremely content with record high closings of the Dow Jones. Yes, the bankers are happy. Now there is a stunning surprise. Austerity and sequester cuts are hurting the poor and the middle class And now we see where the money is coming from to make the bankers happy. No, I don't want more of Obama's economic policies. Don't even get me started on his social policies. As a democrat for the last 20 years or so I can tell you that I hate him worse than Bush. Bush was, at least, a snake in snake's clothing. Obama has that big smile which makes everyone's brain turn off.

Yachtie -> RE: Obamanoimcs...update (7/18/2013 6:53:58 AM)
Mr. Rogers, you really are missing what is going on. That lower deficit is irrelevant. In the Bernanke-Congressional meeting yesterday, the FED Charman was asked - Question: "Are you printing money?" Answer: "Not literally." But the most telling thing was asked near the end of the session. Question: "What if rates rise?" Answer: "The economy will tank." "That means the government is taking in more revenue than it is spending, even though taxes are at their lowest marks." - Mr. Rogers The dollar is declining in purchase power. Part-time jobs are increasing (ACA avoidance?). What is the wage rate of these created jobs? What about full-time jobs? Is middle-class disposable income increasing? Obamanomics is a drain on the economy. Anyone who wants more is insane.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Obamanoimcs...update (7/18/2013 6:55:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers It was just announced that June 2013 showed the largest surplus ever for that month, a record $117 billion. That means the government is taking in more revenue than it is spending, even though taxes are at their lowest marks. In fact, President Obama is spending fewer government dollars than any President since Eisenhower. By the way, the deficit is shrinking steadily, (down 2/3) so if any Congressman uses the “deficit” as an excuse for further budget cuts, they are being disingenuous at best and outright lying at worst. Obviously, all that is just pure asswipe. Revenues can't be high since taxes are low. Spending reduction isn't going to do anything to solve the debt crisis. We have been told over and over that both of those things can't happen. [8\|] quote: Employment is rising slowly, but steadily. Wall Street seems extremely content with record high closings of the Dow Jones. These are all verifiable facts. "Obamanomics” isn’t helping everyone. Austerity and sequester cuts are hurting the poor and the middle class, cutting needed services. Still, given the yard sign is placed on the lawn of a nice home on a lovely street in Wheaton, it seems the owner of the sign should change it to “Obamanomics. I Want More!” Employment is rising. Regardless of what JeffBC might think, even part-time and minimum wage jobs have their places in every employment option. There are always options; more for some, less for others. Austerity and sequester cuts are hurting the poor and middle class? Um, that assumes that the poor and middle class should be relying on government for sustenance. I would argue that isn't true in most cases (see? that allows for the disabled, elderly, etc. that are incapable of relying on themselves and need - and should be able - to rely on government). The issue with the "austerity" and sequester cuts is that they were made to have the greatest impact and cause the greatest discomfort. All in the name of building support to regain all that control back to government. If we cut funding for foreign bases (closing them and bringing those troops home) in half, it isn't going to be as uncomfortable as cutting the same amount of $$ from direct-transfer programs. So, what's going to get cut? Yup. Direct transfer programs. Cutting the other won't gin up support for increased government spending (ie. control). Edited to add: This is not the procedure done just by Democrats. The Republicans are guilty of this, too.

DomKen -> RE: Obamanoimcs...update (7/18/2013 7:05:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC No, I don't want more of Obama's economic policies. Don't even get me started on his social policies. As a democrat for the last 20 years or so I can tell you that I hate him worse than Bush. Bush was, at least, a snake in snake's clothing. Obama has that big smile which makes everyone's brain turn off. We haven't actually seen what the President's economic policies would be. The two years he had where he could get anything done were all about keeping the nation out of another major depression as bad as the 1930's which he did succeed at. Since then he's basically been able to keep the government mostly functioning and that's about it.

DomKen -> RE: Obamanoimcs...update (7/18/2013 7:12:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Austerity and sequester cuts are hurting the poor and middle class? Um, that assumes that the poor and middle class should be relying on government for sustenance. I would argue that isn't true in most cases (see? that allows for the disabled, elderly, etc. that are incapable of relying on themselves and need - and should be able - to rely on government). The government provides services to the poor and middle classes, as well as the upper classes, that it is impossible or impractical to provide by private business and those are being affected by the sequestration. For instance about 30,000 public school teaching and staff positions around the nation have been cut due to the sequester. Police and fire personnel are also being cut around the country due to it. Until it inconvenienced some congresscritters the FAA was going to have to furlough air traffic controllers which would have drastically slowed airport operations around the nation.

tazzygirl -> RE: Obamanoimcs...update (7/18/2013 7:22:08 AM)
quote: Employment is rising. Regardless of what JeffBC might think, even part-time and minimum wage jobs have their places in every employment option. There are always options; more for some, less for others. Many people want full time jobs simply for the benefits, the major one being health insurance. I cant say this for anyone else, but if I can afford my own health insurance, I would gladly accept 2 part time jobs.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Obamanoimcs...update (7/18/2013 7:55:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Employment is rising slowly, but steadily. Wall Street seems extremely content with record high closings of the Dow Jones. These are all verifiable facts. "Obamanomics” isn’t helping everyone. Austerity and sequester cuts are hurting the poor and the middle class, cutting needed services. Still, given the yard sign is placed on the lawn of a nice home on a lovely street in Wheaton, it seems the owner of the sign should change it to “Obamanomics. I Want More!” I'm long done with him and his economic policies. Not, mind you, that I think the Republicans have substantially different economic policies. I think both parties agree that we should steal everything we can from those who cannot defend themselves (which is damned near everyone nowadays). The big question is which particular set of rich guys get the loot. "Employment is rising slowly" Yes, but are we talking half-time, minimum wage, no health coverage Walmart jobs? In other words, is the standard of living for the poor and middle class rising or falling? (hint, see below) Wall Street seems extremely content with record high closings of the Dow Jones. Yes, the bankers are happy. Now there is a stunning surprise. Austerity and sequester cuts are hurting the poor and the middle class And now we see where the money is coming from to make the bankers happy. No, I don't want more of Obama's economic policies. Don't even get me started on his social policies. As a democrat for the last 20 years or so I can tell you that I hate him worse than Bush. Bush was, at least, a snake in snake's clothing. Obama has that big smile which makes everyone's brain turn off. From the BLS database search (ages 16 and up): Employed full time (persons who usually work 35 hours or more) [# in the thousands] [image]http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/LNU02500000Q_740259_1374156491403.gif[/image] Up just over a million compared to Q4 2012 From the BLS database search (ages 16 and up): Employed part time (persons who usually work less than 35 hours) [# in the thousands] [image]http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/LNU02600000Q_740259_1374156491469.gif[/image] Down 240K from Q4 2012. Here are some tidbits that I found interesting. From Q1 2001 through q4 2008 (Bush Presidency), employment went from 136.6M to 144.5M with Q4 2007 being the highest at 146.7M. From Q1 2009 through Q2 2013 (current), employment has gone from 140.1M to 144.3M (current Quarter is currently the highest). This means that there are 2.4M fewer people employed now than in Bush's best quarter (200k fewer than in Bush's last quarter). Clinton started out with 117.7M employed and ended with 137.6M % of the workforce: Q1 1993 75.40% FT 16.56% PT Q4 2000 79.63% FT 16.69% PT Q4 2008 76.48% FT 16.95% PT Q2 2013 74.80% FT 17.81% PT Clinton's highest FT rate: 80.77% Q3 2000 Clinton's highest PT rate: 18.46% Q1 1994 Bush's highest FT rate: 79.75% Q3 2006 Bush's highest PT rate: 17.12% Q4 2004 Obama's highest FT rate: 74.80% Q2 2013 Obama's highest PT rate: 18.32% Q1 2010 One might be able to make a case that as crashes happened, the % of PT jobs has increased and the harder hit are those who work FT. Through the swell of jobs and the advent of the internet in business, the dot.com bust, the housing boom/bust, terror attacks and wars, we are finally getting back to the FT % in Clinton's first quarter as President. We still have more employees than under Clinton (though with the population increases, it's still a higher unemployment rate). The employment participation rate is down from the Clinton years and is generally steady within 1% or so between Bush and Obama. The only time PT work is really detrimental is when it's the only work a person can get even though FT work is desired and it's the only income supporting a family.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Obamanoimcs...update (7/18/2013 7:58:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Austerity and sequester cuts are hurting the poor and middle class? Um, that assumes that the poor and middle class should be relying on government for sustenance. I would argue that isn't true in most cases (see? that allows for the disabled, elderly, etc. that are incapable of relying on themselves and need - and should be able - to rely on government). The government provides services to the poor and middle classes, as well as the upper classes, that it is impossible or impractical to provide by private business and those are being affected by the sequestration. For instance about 30,000 public school teaching and staff positions around the nation have been cut due to the sequester. Police and fire personnel are also being cut around the country due to it. Until it inconvenienced some congresscritters the FAA was going to have to furlough air traffic controllers which would have drastically slowed airport operations around the nation. Like I said. Transfer payments (to the States to distribute to pay for education, fire/police protection, etc.). That is what is getting cut because that is what is going to cause the most discomfort and gin up the most support. That is exactly why those things are being cut. It's not about cutting waste. It's about making cuts to get support for more spending, etc.

tj444 -> RE: Obamanoimcs...update (7/18/2013 8:01:41 AM)
the US Debt Clock is continuing to rise by the second.. I dunno.. that seems like a big problem imo.. http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Phydeaux -> RE: Obamanoimcs...update (7/18/2013 8:19:47 AM)
Why are people tired of Obamanomics? Well how about labor force participation has dropped 2.2% since the end of the recession? Anyone that thinks this economy is good is crazy. Also, there are a few graphs out their comparing Bernankes credit bubble to the previous housing bubble and it is very, very scary. I don't know the source that you were using for jobs - but the graph of labor force participation in the workforce is the worst its been in more than 40 years. I haven't figure out how to put pics here so I'll just give a link. http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 You have to go back to 1977 to find an equal labor force participation. And no - it isn't because of baby boomers retiring - the std dim. explanation. If it was, unemployment would be low. Its because jobs were lost. So all the jobs that would normally return after a recession - haven't. And as has been documented in many many places, this is the most anemic recovery, ever since statistics have been taken. Usually the steeper the recession, the faster the recovery. Not in this case. And really, the only thing we can say is the fiscal and monetary policies have some causal relationship to that. Ergo, the current policies have been a stunning failure. I give Bernanke some credit for avoiding a depression, and for avoiding a collapse in the world financial markets. But we need to ease of the easy credit. Bernanke can't do that due to the (now) twin goals of the Fed to guarantee full employement. But full empoyment is never going to happen as we have too much excess capacity in the system worldwide now. Essentially every job added in china is coming at the expense of jobs in US and Europe - and no amount of cheap credit is going to fix that. We have to fix the structural imbalances that cause American products to be non-competitive. So we can either fix things like streamlining regulations - or we can do nothing and let wages continue to stagnate. People think I am pro corporations because I am a greedy capitalist pig. But it has nothing to do with that, actually. If you removed corporate income taxes - you would make our products more competitve. You could gain more market share, you could pay more in wages.

mnottertail -> RE: Obamanoimcs...update (7/18/2013 8:31:30 AM)
Well, what is the standard nutsuck. reasoning? Because it is clear that shipping jobs overseas over the past 30 and more years has had some minor impact on this, since our business cycles are now confined not to a booming economy but to housing bubbles and the like.

Zonie63 -> RE: Obamanoimcs...update (7/18/2013 9:01:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers what economic system would the owner and displayer of this yard sign prefer to “Obamanomics?” It's just the same economics that both Republicans and Democrats have supported for decades. It's actually global economics which are supported and implemented by multiple governments around the world. Besides, economic policies take time to implement and really take any effect on the overall economy. Generally, the state of the economy in the present could be the result of policies implemented 10-20 (or more) years ago. I think part of the problem we face has to do with popularly held notions and perceptions about economics overall. Too many people seem to view economics as some sort of hard science that has absolute mathematical precision. We listen to guys like Bernanke and other economic "experts" as if they're omniscient and speaking the word of God. The study of economics is really just a specialized form of political science. Social sciences are valid fields of study, but it's more in the realm of philosophy and predicting/analyzing human behavior. There's this idea that if you take any group of people and give them an economic system to live by, it will always produce the same results regardless of who they are, where they are, what culture/history they have, and when. It's the idea that success or failure of a society solely rests on the kind of economic system they have, while ostensibly disregarding the plethora of other factors which may make or break an economic or political system. This idea always struck me whenever I would hear or read debates between the merits of capitalism vs. communism.

RacerJim -> RE: Obamanoimcs...update (7/18/2013 9:06:15 AM)
I don't know why the OP didn't include the name of the author of the article they posted but it's, Diane Niesman, a Member of the Board of Directors of the Wheaton (IL) League of Women Voters, Vice President (Programs), Director of Publicity for Voter Affairs and Issues Specialist for Climate Change-Air Quality and Energy for the League of Women Voters of Illinois. DuPage county a lot less vanilla Census data shows increasing diversity March 19, 2013\|By Quan Truong, Chicago Tribune reporter DuPage County is far different than it was two decades ago with demographic trends showing growth in poverty, more diversity and an aging population, says Candace King, executive director of the DuPage Federation on Human Services Reform. "I tell people this is not your father's DuPage County," she said. "The county has a far greater number of people from racial and ethnic minorities than it ever used to. I have a picture of DuPage in the past with a bowl of vanilla ice cream and DuPage present as caramel fudge swirl." King has been tracking U.S. Census Bureau data, collecting facts about poverty and demographics that she says shows a drastic shift that will need to be addressed by prioritizing public dollars, more awareness and a call for the charitable to step up. The federation is a non-profit planning and development group that began as an initiative formed by the governor's office in 1995. It researches and identifies problems in DuPage County, focusing on human services issues. King will present her data on March 21 at the Wheaton Park District Community Center in a presentation called "Who Are Your New Neighbors?," sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Wheaton. Doors open for a meet and greet at 7 p.m. and the program will start at 7:30 p.m. The program is free and open to the public. Diane Niesman, program chair of the League, describes King as a "dynamic speaker." "You know that old saying that knowledge is power. People, hopefully, will come away from this learning something they didn't know before," she said. "One of our main missions is to educate voters, and we're not all about registering and candidate forums and stuff. We have issues that we support and advocate, and this is relevant and important information to people who live here." Diversity in the county is rapidly increasing, King said. The 233,700 people who don't speak English at home made up more than a quarter of population in 2011, according to Census statistics cited by King. That's compared to 57,500 in 1990, just 8 percent of the county's residents, she said. That population growth, she said, helps prop up the labor force and real estate market. But at the same time, she noted, the county's median income level is dropping. The number of people living below the federal poverty level has grown from 21,000 in 1990 to about 70,000 in 2011, King said.." No wonder that "Obamanics. Had Enough?" sign!

DomKen -> RE: Obamanoimcs...update (7/18/2013 9:15:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Austerity and sequester cuts are hurting the poor and middle class? Um, that assumes that the poor and middle class should be relying on government for sustenance. I would argue that isn't true in most cases (see? that allows for the disabled, elderly, etc. that are incapable of relying on themselves and need - and should be able - to rely on government). The government provides services to the poor and middle classes, as well as the upper classes, that it is impossible or impractical to provide by private business and those are being affected by the sequestration. For instance about 30,000 public school teaching and staff positions around the nation have been cut due to the sequester. Police and fire personnel are also being cut around the country due to it. Until it inconvenienced some congresscritters the FAA was going to have to furlough air traffic controllers which would have drastically slowed airport operations around the nation. Like I said. Transfer payments (to the States to distribute to pay for education, fire/police protection, etc.). That is what is getting cut because that is what is going to cause the most discomfort and gin up the most support. That is exactly why those things are being cut. It's not about cutting waste. It's about making cuts to get support for more spending, etc. The sequester didn't give options it was a specific percentage cut from all affected line items.

DomKen -> RE: Obamanoimcs...update (7/18/2013 9:17:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim Diversity in the county is rapidly increasing, King said. The 233,700 people who don't speak English at home made up more than a quarter of population in 2011, according to Census statistics cited by King. That's compared to 57,500 in 1990, just 8 percent of the county's residents, she said. You're not even pretending anymore. I find it odd that the forum rules apparently forbid stating an obvious fact.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Obamanoimcs...update (7/18/2013 10:26:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Austerity and sequester cuts are hurting the poor and middle class? Um, that assumes that the poor and middle class should be relying on government for sustenance. I would argue that isn't true in most cases (see? that allows for the disabled, elderly, etc. that are incapable of relying on themselves and need - and should be able - to rely on government). The government provides services to the poor and middle classes, as well as the upper classes, that it is impossible or impractical to provide by private business and those are being affected by the sequestration. For instance about 30,000 public school teaching and staff positions around the nation have been cut due to the sequester. Police and fire personnel are also being cut around the country due to it. Until it inconvenienced some congresscritters the FAA was going to have to furlough air traffic controllers which would have drastically slowed airport operations around the nation. Like I said. Transfer payments (to the States to distribute to pay for education, fire/police protection, etc.). That is what is getting cut because that is what is going to cause the most discomfort and gin up the most support. That is exactly why those things are being cut. It's not about cutting waste. It's about making cuts to get support for more spending, etc. The sequester didn't give options it was a specific percentage cut from all affected line items. Care to show proof that teachers, fire and police forces were required to be specifically impacted?

Phydeaux -> RE: Obamanoimcs...update (7/18/2013 10:41:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Well, what is the standard nutsuck. reasoning? Because it is clear that shipping jobs overseas over the past 30 and more years has had some minor impact on this, since our business cycles are now confined not to a booming economy but to housing bubbles and the like. LOLOLOLLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOOLOLOLOLOOOLOLOLOLOLOL Oh yes thats rich. The huge decrease since 2008 is caused by 30 years worth of shipping jobs overseas. It couldn't possibly be because of our policies now.

MrRodgers -> RE: Obamanoimcs...update (7/18/2013 10:44:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim I don't know why the OP didn't include the name of the author of the article they posted but it's, Diane Niesman, a Member of the Board of Directors of the Wheaton (IL) League of Women Voters, Vice President (Programs), Director of Publicity for Voter Affairs and Issues Specialist for Climate Change-Air Quality and Energy for the League of Women Voters of Illinois. No wonder that "Obamanics. Had Enough?" sign! I didn't give this OP the messenger. (but did the link) Gee...I wonder why ? Well then, I guess that changes everything.

DomKen -> RE: Obamanoimcs...update (7/18/2013 11:14:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Austerity and sequester cuts are hurting the poor and middle class? Um, that assumes that the poor and middle class should be relying on government for sustenance. I would argue that isn't true in most cases (see? that allows for the disabled, elderly, etc. that are incapable of relying on themselves and need - and should be able - to rely on government). The government provides services to the poor and middle classes, as well as the upper classes, that it is impossible or impractical to provide by private business and those are being affected by the sequestration. For instance about 30,000 public school teaching and staff positions around the nation have been cut due to the sequester. Police and fire personnel are also being cut around the country due to it. Until it inconvenienced some congresscritters the FAA was going to have to furlough air traffic controllers which would have drastically slowed airport operations around the nation. Like I said. Transfer payments (to the States to distribute to pay for education, fire/police protection, etc.). That is what is getting cut because that is what is going to cause the most discomfort and gin up the most support. That is exactly why those things are being cut. It's not about cutting waste. It's about making cuts to get support for more spending, etc. The sequester didn't give options it was a specific percentage cut from all affected line items. Care to show proof that teachers, fire and police forces were required to be specifically impacted? It was across the board cuts. That means every single program affected had to be cut. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequester_(2013)

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.125