Author Topic: Election 2012 (Read 240516 times)

Progmetty · « **Reply #2240 on:** May 07, 2012, 06:14:05 PM »

I agree about the devoted fans but I never really ran into them, every part of what repels you from him makes sense too.

Riceball · « **Reply #2241 on:** May 07, 2012, 08:11:09 PM »

Partly because I want to gloat (I called this about three months ago) and partly because this is important:

Quote

America's labour force and the economy
The missing five million
May 4th 2012, 20:55 by G.I. | WASHINGTON, D.C.

..THERE'S a short term and a long-term story in today's job numbers. The stock market did not like the short-term story, and fell sharply as a result. But the short-term news is not as bad as it looks, while the long-term news is actually quite disturbing.

Let me explain. The sharp deceleration in employment growth in the last two months probably does not point to a sudden slowing in economic growth but rather tells us that the more brisk pace of growth earlier this year was unsustainable because much of it was due to warm weather. A useful gauge is the number of people not working because of weather. Morgan Stanley says this tally was unusually low during the winter, but in April it returned to normal levels. This suggests the weather payback effect is largely over.

A second factor technical factor is that there were only four weeks between the March and April periods during which the Bureau of Labour Statistics counted the number of jobs, which often reduces the measured total of new jobs created. And finally, while the decline in employment as measured by the household survey was troubling, it does not portend weakness ahead; household employment has run well ahead of payroll employment in the last 12 months and some retracement was in store.

Now for the bad news. The fact that things were never so great simply reinforces the picture of underlying sluggishness. True, the slide in the unemployment rate – a full percentage point since September – owes mostly to rising employment (as measured by the household survey). But the decline in unemployment has been helped by the failure of the labour force to grow more quickly. After growing for several months, it shrank in April. While it has fluctuated considerably, the labour force is only slightly larger now than in December, 2007, when the recession began. Yet in January, 2008, the Congressional Budget Office reckoned it would be some 5m larger by now, or 159.5m (see chart). What happened to those 5m people? Why aren't they showing up as unemployed? Some are discouraged workers or other people who want to work but aren’t counted as unemployed; but I reckon they account for only one third of the missing 5m.

So what about the others? Is it early retirement? Disability? Returning to school? Illegal immigrants returning home (or failing to enter the country in the first place)? Or were they never there to start with - the labour force simply isn't growing as quickly as we thought it should, for demographic or other reasons? Whichever it is, it is a troubling sign that our economic potential could be a lot lower than we thought just a few years ago. And that's the real bad news from today’s report.

https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/05/americas-labour-force-and-economy?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/bl/missingfivemillion

Scheavo · « **Reply #2242 on:** May 08, 2012, 02:41:45 AM »

How many disabled Iraq and Afghanistan vets? How many homeless and suffering from PTSD?

There's not just returning to school, but also staying in school. I know a lot of people getting Masters and Ph. D's, they're almost like what a college degree sounds like it was 30-40 years ago.

In hard times, how many people start getting jobs that pay under the table? Do these jobs get counted in the labor force?

Immigration seems like a good suspect. It made news a little bit ago that the number of illegal immigrants leaving had outpaced the number entering, wonder what legal immigration is like?

Life-style changes. If families became more frugal, then maybe one of the spouses stops looking for a job to be a stay at home parent. Not gonna be true for the poorest of poor, but it could definitely fit some middle class families, and it can save a lot of money.

Why should we necessarily trust the 2008 CBO's estimate? Couldn't they have been way off, overestimating an economies strength during a bubble?

I reckon I have no idea how much this changes the number's, but it seems like all of them combined should have some effect.

kirksnosehair · « **Reply #2243 on:** May 08, 2012, 08:06:48 AM »

Eh, economies expand and contract. This has been happening ever since there was an economy here in the US. We avoided a depression (personally, I think Dubya's and Obama's stimuli played key roles here) but you don't climb out of the deepest recession in over 50 years as quickly as you may have climbed out of more recent, less severe economic contractions. I've lived through a bunch of these now and this one is playing out pretty much the same way as all of the others with the exception of the recovery taking longer to gain some traction. It'll happen, because history shows us that it'll happen. It's just a matter of time.

Meanwhile, you've gotta just love the size of Mitt Romney's stones sometimes. I mean, this is just ridiculous:

Quote from: Mitt Romney, November 18, 2008

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Source

So then, Dubya bails out GM and Chrysler. And those bailouts have been extremely successful, with GM reclaiming the mantle of largest automaker on earth and posting HUGE profits last year.

So, now, after saying that bailing out the auto industry would destroy it, Romney goes into spin mode and says this:

Quote from: Mitt Romney lying his ass off at a campaign rally

"I'll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry's come back," Romney told WEWS-TV in Cleveland. Speaking after a campaign stop at a metal stamping facility in nearby Euclid, Romney said the industry needed to enter a "managed bankruptcy" process in order to fully recover – and that was what eventually helped American automakers get back on their feet.

Source

Except, the problem here is yes, technically, there was a bankruptcy, BUT, there was also a bailout, which Romney objected to - warning that the auto industry would be destroyed by it. And without that bailout, most economists agree that the entire bankruptcy process would not even have been possible because the US government was the only entity in the country at the time that had the available cash to guarantee the huge loans. Basically, Romney's trying to have it both ways.

This is the kind of ridiculous spin that feeds Romney's image as nothing but a Slick-Willy Magic Snake Oil Salesman

TL · « **Reply #2244 on:** May 08, 2012, 08:45:38 PM »

So apparently Ron Paul has received or will receive a plurality of delegates in 8 states now, the latest being Maine, where he will receive 21 of their 24 delegates.

It's not actually enough to change anything, but it's enough that Romney actually felt like he had to release a statement reaffirming his inevitability.

rumborak · « **Reply #2245 on:** May 08, 2012, 09:24:43 PM »

And in other news, Ron runs behind a guy who isn't even running anymore.
All RP is achieving is to get a good seat in the RNC.

rumborak

kirksnosehair · « **Reply #2246 on:** May 14, 2012, 01:14:31 PM »

Quote from: rumborak on May 08, 2012, 09:24:43 PM

And in other news, Ron runs behind a guy who isn't even running anymore.
All RP is achieving is to get a good seat in the RNC.

rumborak

And in still other news, Ron Paul is scaling back his campaign.

rumborak · « **Reply #2247 on:** May 14, 2012, 05:21:43 PM »

I love going to the Ron Paul Forums after announcements like that. It's a remarkable case study in psychology.

rumborak

jsem · « **Reply #2248 on:** May 14, 2012, 05:47:32 PM »

Haven't visited RPF for like two months, otherwise I would've told you... lol.

Sigz · « **Reply #2249 on:** May 14, 2012, 05:59:44 PM »

Man, I just went there. There's still people saying that there's vote flipping going on? Really?

Scheavo · « **Reply #2250 on:** May 15, 2012, 02:07:07 AM »

https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-campaign-ad-touts-steel-mill-boosted-bain-195535525.html

Quote

Just hours after President Barack Obama's re-election campaign tied Mitt Romney to the bankruptcy of a Missouri steel company, the Romney campaign is out with its own Web video highlighting a steel company it says Romney helped save.

The video, entitled "American Dream," zeroes in on Steel Dynamics Inc., an Indiana company that Bain Capital invested in when Romney worked at the venture capital firm.

Fair enough...

oh wait...

Quote

And it also doesn't bring up the $37 million in government subsidies the company received that contributed to its survival.

jsem · « **Reply #2251 on:** May 15, 2012, 04:57:15 AM »

Ouch.

kirksnosehair · « **Reply #2252 on:** May 15, 2012, 11:01:10 AM »

Mitt Pwmney

Scheavo · « **Reply #2253 on:** May 15, 2012, 01:54:46 PM »

Evidently, Bain's business practices often put the taxpayers on the line for their decisions. Bain goes in, leverages out a company, and when they fail, taxpayer money ends up dealing with some of the negative consequences.

Romney's nothing but an economic parasite.

jsem · « **Reply #2254 on:** May 15, 2012, 02:34:24 PM »

Restructuring is no wrong imo, but him taking subsidies for it is wrong. I mean, I would take free money too if I could, but you can't go around running for president with that on your record

Scheavo · « **Reply #2255 on:** May 15, 2012, 02:39:38 PM »

You can't go running around for President on a record of being a "free-market capitalist" when you get governmental aide, and when you stick taxpayers with the consequences. I personally have no problems with the subsidies he took advantage of, or really someone using those subsidies to help a steel factory stay in operation, but the level of hypocrisy for Romney would almost be funny, if it weren't so damn serious.

jsem · « **Reply #2256 on:** May 15, 2012, 02:54:27 PM »

If he took the subsidies to help one firm succeed, that means the government basically picked a winner or bailed out an industry through Bain. Protectionism through private hands... that's utterly wrong.

Scheavo · « **Reply #2257 on:** May 15, 2012, 03:03:06 PM »

Eh, we can agree that Romney's a douche without actually getting into how our economic theories differ. Because really, that's a sideshow. It's about the mans hypocrisy, saying one thing and doing another.

jsem · « **Reply #2258 on:** May 15, 2012, 03:12:51 PM »

Well, politicians.

Scheavo · « **Reply #2259 on:** May 15, 2012, 04:26:53 PM »

Spose that makes Dr. Paul a hypocrite and all the other nasty things associated with politicians?

Super Dude · « **Reply #2260 on:** May 15, 2012, 05:21:27 PM »

Quote from: Scheavo on May 15, 2012, 04:26:53 PM

Spose that makes Dr. Paul a hypocrite and all the other nasty things associated with politicians?

After all, he is running for office. And running for office implies becoming a politician of some capacity. Not to mention, running for the particular office that he apparently condemns as having too much power.

jsem · « **Reply #2261 on:** May 15, 2012, 08:20:36 PM »

Dr. Paul isn't perfect by a long shot. The earmarking thing being one of those issues, where he on principle hates the fact that money is being allocated the way it does and he doesn't vote for the bill. But he makes sure he doesn't vote until the bill is passed, because he can't deny that money from getting to where it's going inside of him.

But he's miles ahead of almost any other politician out there in the US.

Scheavo · « **Reply #2262 on:** May 15, 2012, 08:34:42 PM »

Quote from: jsem on May 15, 2012, 08:20:36 PM

But he's miles ahead of almost any other politician out there in the US.

And that'd be my point. Trying to wash away Romney's massive, constant lies and hypocrisy as "well, he's a politician," ignores the numerous politicians out there are who are much better, though not perfect.

jsem · « **Reply #2263 on:** May 15, 2012, 08:40:13 PM »

I'm not trying to wash it away. I'm just stating... typical politicians. By no means gives him a free pass.

Scheavo · « **Reply #2264 on:** May 15, 2012, 08:50:03 PM »

Alrighty then, sounded like you were giving it some justification. Personally, I wouldn't use the word "politician," as that's too wide of net; I prefer the words demogogue and charlatan, as they don't implicate more or less honest politicians.

Super Dude · « **Reply #2265 on:** May 15, 2012, 10:02:41 PM »

I don't think it's something that should be squarely blamed on politicians as it is; human beings in every capacity of life, professional or not, are apt to succumb to the same temptations and corrupting bullshit. The only differences are the consequences of such human failings and how widely publicized they can be (like how the news can cover both a corrupt politician and a corrupt businessman caught in a Ponzi scheme, but the rap those two individuals will get from their actions are widely different given the scope and type of harm they cause).

rumborak · « **Reply #2266 on:** May 19, 2012, 09:23:05 PM »

Btw, one of the most stunning features of hardcore RP supporters is the rampant affinity for conspiracy theories. The largest thread on the RP forum was about "algorythmic (sic) vote flipping" (the theory being that Romney people infiltrated counties and switched votes from Paul to Romney according to some algorithm) , and now they are theorizing that Paul got threatened by "the establishment" to force him to suspend his campaign.

rumborak

kirksnosehair · « **Reply #2267 on:** May 20, 2012, 05:59:08 AM »

That takes batshit crazy to a whole new level, I think

kirksnosehair · « **Reply #2268 on:** May 24, 2012, 01:47:49 PM »

Speaking of bat-shit crazy

rumborak · « **Reply #2269 on:** May 24, 2012, 01:57:54 PM »

GOP: Pandering to shit-for-brains every day, a bit more.

jsem · « **Reply #2270 on:** May 24, 2012, 03:27:20 PM »

Lol. Politics....

kirksnosehair · « **Reply #2271 on:** May 30, 2012, 10:26:51 AM »

Speaking of "LOL Politics"

A-M-E-R-C-I-A

Sigz · « **Reply #2272 on:** May 30, 2012, 10:36:22 AM »

Ryzee · « **Reply #2273 on:** May 30, 2012, 10:54:07 AM »

Amercia, fukc yaeh!

rumborak · « **Reply #2274 on:** May 30, 2012, 11:29:59 AM »

You can't make that shit up, seriously.

rumborak

News: Paralyzed official video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7m7l8iqGAk

Author Topic: Election 2012 (Read 240516 times)