New "Celebrity President" commercial……

[jamminj]

to add what was added in the job thread…

“225,000 needed per month to make any dent at all.”

That is what, 2,700,000 per year. So lets give Obama a pass the first year, you know the whole recession and everything. So in 3 years his goal, according to 225,000 a month, is 8,100,000 jobs by end of 2012.

Now compare that to what past presidents have accomplished, in their FULL 4 year terms.

Millions of Jobs Added

Truman 1949 -1952 5.2

Eisenhower 1953 – 1956 2.7

Eisenhower 1957 – 1960 0.8

Kennedy/Johnson 1961 – 1964 5.7

Johnson 1965 – 1968 9.8

Nixon 1969 – 1972 6.1

Nixon/Ford 1972 – 1976 5.2

Carter 1977 – 1980 10.4

Reagan 1981 – 1984 5.2

Reagan 1985 – 1988 10.8

Bush 1989 – 1992 2.5

Clinton 1993 – 1996 11.6

Clinton 1997 – 2000 11.5

Bush Jr 2001 – 2004 (0.1)

Bush Jr 2005 – 2008 5.1

Now asking, no, demanding 225,000 a month – is that realistic?, or just a number to throw out to make sure he is deemed a failure. I guess if Romney wins, then he needs to at least double that number to even meet the min then.

what loss of public sector jobs mean to the private sector.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/08/usa-states-employees-idUSL2E8F39HE20120408

“The last three years of job losses at the state and local government level has been the most dramatic since Labor Department records began in 1955, “

“Also, most post recession job numbers are around 400,000+ when you start to dig out. Reagan and Bush2 both had such numbers after the recessions they “inherited”.”

and they did that with govt hiring and no govt layoffs. Both of which Obama is dealing with.

It’s all about ‘small’ govt – unless the right is in power.

Share This

[DBP]

You know, if I didn’t think Obama was gonna win back his base and bag the election anyhow, I might not be so hard on the guy. As things stand, though, I think I’ll keep screwin’ with the guy for a little.

I’m not normally one to be dishing out “advice for the lovelorn,” but honestly, girls . . . aren’t you letting yourselves go a little cheap?

 

Share This

[redblack]

jab away, DP.

but if you think you’re going to convince me – or any other liberal – to vote for the guy from bain capital, you’re nuts.

from ari berman at the nation:

Romney has been similarly hawkish on military spending, another neocon priority. His plan to spend a minimum of 4 percent of GDP on the Pentagon would increase its budget by more than $200 billion in 2016, a 38 percent hike over Obama’s budget, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “Romney’s proposal to embark on a second straight decade of escalating military spending would be the first time in American history that war preparation and defense spending had increased as a share of overall economic activity for such an extended period,” wrote Merrill Goozner in the Fiscal Times. “When coupled with the 20 percent cut in taxes he promises, it would require shrinking domestic spending to levels not seen since the Great Depression—before programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid began.” Such cuts, Goozner noted, “would likely throw the U.S. economy back into recession.”

the guy has a thin foreign policy resume, so he’s getting the band back together, so to speak. and what that means is an increase in military spending and a return to foreign interventionism.

been there. done that.

in my opinion, obama has done as he promised from the ’08 campaign trail: he has “done more with less.” yeah, we’re still in afghanistan years after we should have packed it up, but at least we’re not in iran – or in bed with likud – and the military’s budget has received serious scrutiny for the first time in 50 years. (and i’ll give republicans some credit for that.)

and do you really want this guy

to be secretary of state?

Share This

[Smitty]

1) When coupled with the 20 percent cut in taxes he promises, it would require shrinking domestic spending to levels not seen since the Great Depression

A 20% cut in taxes does not necessarily mean a 20% reduction in tax revenues. R’s and D’s look through a different prism when it comes to tax rates and tax revenues.

2) His plan to spend a minimum of 4 percent of GDP on the Pentagon would increase its budget by more than $200 billion in 2016

Isn’t that just an example of Krugmanian government stimulus? I thought you guys loved that stuff? Actually agree with you on this, however.

Share This

[redblack]

lower taxes may spur some economic growth for some sectors of the economy, but it doesn’t lead to overall job creation or broaden the tax base. and the more people who are out there earning paychecks and paying taxes, FICA, and medicare, the greater the revenues.

from wapo circa 2006, as we were nearing the apogee of the housing bubble:

“Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There’s really no dispute among economists about that,” said Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute. “It’s logically possible” that a tax cut could spur sufficient economic growth to pay for itself, Viard said. “But there’s no evidence that these tax cuts would come anywhere close to that.”

while it’s funny that wapo calls AEI nonpartisan, the bottom line is that lower taxes lead to less revenue than if tax rates return to, say, clinton-era levels.

regarding the stimulus comment, bombs and bullets are single-use items. once you use them, they and the money spent to produce them are gone like a fart in a stiff breeze. military spending is an overall drain on the economy, despite the jobs needed to create bombs and bullets – which i believe have been off-shored anyway.

Share This

[HMC Rich]

38 months in a row of job losses. This recovery is unfortunately stalling.

Since 2007 until last year the Democrats owned Congress. Then BHO was elected. The Republicans had no say whatsoever.

2010 the Republicans took the house, but the Senate has stalled every single bill they do not like. And then if the President didn’t like a bill, Like Keystone – even after 3 years of study etc – he would veto it.

Since 2007, when unemployment was about 4.7% the Democrats have controlled the purse strings.

Let me put it in perspective for you. For the last 5 years the Democratic Policies have led us to our current situation.

Republicans are in a metamorphosis. I agree the 4 Billion in Bushes 8 years was bad. But 5 Trillion in 3 years is worse.

Share This

[redblack]

Let me put it in perspective for you. For the last 5 years the Democratic Policies have led us to our current situation.

and as soon as you can convince me that there’s an ounce of daylight between bush’s tax policies and obama’s, i might start to take you seriously.

obama talks a lot about taking tax rates back to clinton-era levels, but he hasn’t done so. for one thing, the millionaires in congress won’t let him.

and the fact is that budget deficits are forecast to shrink over the next decade. why not raise taxes and shrink them faster?

you want to cut spending? let’s start with the offense – i mean defense! – department’s international interventions, procurement, and private contracting.

for another thing, bush’s last budget deficit was $1.2 trillion, and it included TARP. i know you guys don’t like to talk about where we’ve been, but it’s like bush parachuted out of the plane right before it hit the mountain. you can’t expect me to ignore that or believe that returning to those policies is a good thing.

Since 2007 until last year the Democrats owned Congress. Then BHO was elected. The Republicans had no say whatsoever.

this is a perfect example of what i’m talking about. republicans have the temerity to claim outrage that democrats didn’t clean up 30 years of republican red ink in 24 months. over 400 procedural filibusters by the minority party in the senate stopped legislation from going anywhere.

republicans had no say? democrats controlled everything?

i think not.

Share This

[redblack]

one more thing: when bush was handed a budget surplus by the previous administration, what was conservatives’ reaction?

“why, that’s my money! i demand that you give it back to me in $300 increments so i can spend it and stimulate the economy.”

not one word then about reducing the debt. and i don’t believe for one second that romney will do anything differently.

Share This

[HMC Rich]

The last budget passed included the stimulus and other pork friendly budget items. Those monies are still in the budget.

Why won;t the Senate pass a budget? Because the last budget raised spending at least 800 Billion over the last budget. They don’t want to spend less.

The Senate, is being irresponsible and disingenuous about spending. To keep the government running they keep passing Continuing Resolutions.

AND GUESS WHAT, THE REPUBLICANS CAN’T DO ANYTHING BECAUSE THEY DON’T HAVE THE VOTES IN THE SENATE.

The Five Trillion in extra debt is due to Pelosi, Reed and Obama.

The Republicans, even with the House are powerless.

So who is to blame. The Democrat party.

You will try to blame Bush but since 2007 the Democratic party has controlled the purse strings.

President Obama Promised to cut the Deficit, Promised more transparancy, Promised if the Stimulus was passed that unemployment would not go over 8%. Promised to close Gitmo. He promised so much and has not delivered.

38 months of continuing job losses. The amount of people on Foodstamps has doubled since the Bush years.

The amount of discouraged workers who are not on the Unemployment reports is the highest it has been since the Depression. The actual unemployment rate is truly around 14.5%

Own it lefties. The Republicans have been powerless. Especially in the two years before the pogrom of Democrats in 2010. You owned the Senate, The House, The Presidency. You can’t blame Bush for everything anymore. As of 2006 midterm elections, it’s been on you.

Share This

[HMC Rich]

Republicans can own up to the fact that during the Bush years in retrospect, when the Republicans controlled the houses, they got too spendy and government grew. We see our errors. We see the Democrats spending at warp speed. The Tea Party evolved (without Anarchists), as a reaction. Even Occupy evolved during the OBAMA years because they know something isn’t right. Unfortunately they blame everyone else for their problems. Pathetic.

We know the failing policies of Mr. Obama and Senator Reid are bankrupting our country. We know that the country is at a dangerouse tipping point and the time to start turning back towards fiscal responsibility.

Can Republicans and Democrats do it? Washington has a spending mentality. But the problem for budget cutting Types, is that with so many people hurting and the mood for civil disobedience is basically being promoted, the government who starts cutting out of necessity, there may be more than peaceful protests.

AND IT ISN’T THE REPUBLICANS WHO ALWAYS MARCH AND CAUSE DAMAGE. IT ISN’T REPUBLICANS WHO HAVE GATHERINGS AND LEAVE GARBAGE AND DESTRUCTION behind. IT ISNT REPUBLICANS THAT SPIT IN POLICE OFFICERS FACES.

And the 99% have to pay for the destruction to fix up what was broken.

Share This

[JoB]

HMCRich.. the Republicans … who have plenty of say in the government … are far more concerned about curtailing women’s reproductive rights than they are about passing a budget.

smitty…

how many times does a strategy have to be proven wrong before you give up on it?

Lower tax rates didn’t increase revenues under Ronnie Raygun… a rising economy did.

do you see a rising economy in our near future?

because if you do i would love to be looking through your crystal ball

without it.. lower taxes equals lower revenue equals higher deficit.

Share This

[redblack]

i’m not blaming bush for everything. we are where we are. what i am questioning is the philosophy that somehow smaller government is the solution to all of our woes. there’s no proof of this.

you claim democrats control the purse strings, but every budget offered up by democrats gets shot down. furthermore, republicans control the house, and their budget offering is the ryan plan. what is the ryan plan? more austerity for social programs and tax cuts for people who are surviving the recession just fine.

democrats seem to be just as powerless to affect fiscal change as republicans are. i mean, your taxes haven’t gone up, have they?

the senate budget committee is gridlocked, and kent conrad doesn’t see the point in bringing a budget to the senate floor. why? because republicans have enough votes to stop anything that passes from committee. in case you haven’t been paying attention, it takes 60 votes to get anything done in the senate these days. why?

by the way, rich, did you know that the 2012 budget that has been enacted in chunks was greater than the budget requested by the white house?

own it.

Share This

[JoB]

you want a smaller government?

elect a democrat.

democratic presidents downsize the federal government.

republican presidents increase the size of the federal government

you want to cut the safety net out from under America’s most needy citizens

while increasing the corporate feeding trough

elect a republican

because that’s how the two parties roll.

but don’t expect increasing corporate giveaways

to result in American jobs

that expectation is so last century :(

Share This

[kootchman]

Sure… we all believe that. The only safety net your government is providing is the one under its’ trapeze act.

Share This

[redblack]

rich: the name of the movement is occupy wall street, not occupy white house. it’s largely apolitical. and the anarchists attach themselves to any massive gathering that smacks of populism. or popular uprising, anyway. obviously, that excludes the “tea party” and its money.

and, yeah, i suppose it’s easy to be tidy when you bus everyone in your astroturf rally in and out in one day.

and, uh, sure. we’ll have the anarchists pay for their damage – as soon as you get the top 1% to pay back its $16 trillion in federal debt.

Share This

[DBP]

This is the last critical thing I’ll say about Obama for the next 24 hours. Promise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwlCTc3YluY&feature=relmfu

Share This

[redblack]

DP: yawn.

enjoy your nap. get back to us when you have something to say.

trust me: we’ll still be here.

Share This

[kootchman]

Government is an expense … charged to private capital … and now 40 per cent funded by the national credit card. What corporate giveaways? Green energy tax credits, Solar One, Solyndra, Fisker…those corporate giveaways? !0K tax credit for a bow wow electric Volt they can’t give away? The 340,000K to throw those Solyndra panels into the dump? Or are you possibley referring to the 32 per cent tax rate oil companies pay… the highest in the manufacturing sector….. I note Obama ain’t singing that tune anymore now that it had been debunked.

Share This

[redblack]

the corporate sector – especially big oil – doesn’t actually pay anywhere near that rate. yes, they’re getting tax giveaways that make solyndra look like a grain of sand on a beach.

and if they did pay that much in taxes, they’d just pass it on to the consumer through higher prices, which is the same as not paying the tax at all.

you’re right. government is an expense that we should all pay for. and you want to shrink it and weaken it so that it can’t fight back against the corporate sector.

Share This

[JoB]

kootch…

I know we are both watching the political races today.. especially that in Wisconsin.

I don’t expect it..

but i certainly hope the people of these United States win…

it’s high time we stopped listening to the carpetbaggers who think this nation is their own personal piggy bank.

i agree that we need to pay more attention to our national bottom line

but, I think we can’t afford the special breaks to big big business including the military expenditures that are completely out of control

you think we can’t afford to help our people.

I think we can’t afford not to.

you watch the telly

I am going to garden

neither of our actions will affect the outcome.

Share This

[Author]

Posts