President Obama Re-Elected - Page 124

On June 10 2012 12:18 smarty pants wrote:


Cool ad hominem attack.

On June 10 2012 12:18 smarty pants wrote:


Cool ad hominem attack.

On June 10 2012 13:00 xDaunt wrote:

Don't mind him. If he wants to bend over backwards to defend Obama's stupid comment when not even Obama will dare defend it, that's his business. Everyone knows Obama jumped the shark, and no sane person believes that the private sector is in good shape, particularly as it appears that we are about to be dragged into another recession by the mess in Europe and slowdowns in China and India.

Mitt Romney is afraid of being embarrassed in his home state by a socially liberal candidate who has admitted to smoking pot in his past — no, not President Obama: It’s Libertarian Gary Johnson. That’s the basis of a lawsuit expected to be filed in Michigan next week by the Libertarian Party of Michigan, alleging the Republican secretary of state is working to keep Johnson off the ballot this November.

Johnson started out as a Republican candidate for president, but dropped out to run for the Libertarian nomination after the former New Mexico governor’s brand of socially liberal, fiscally extremely conservative politics (for the uninitiated, Johnson’s for legalizing pot, he’s pro-choice, pro-gay marriage and he wants to slash the federal budget by more than $1 trillion in his first budget) failed to gain any traction in the crowded GOP primary.

Last month, Johnson picked up the Libertarian nomination, putting him in position to appear on the ballot in most states as a third-party candidate and helping him qualify for federal matching funds.

But thanks to what Libertarians and their allies call an unprecedented and politically motivated reading of an obscure state law, Johnson likely won’t appear on the ballot in Michigan, a state Romney would love to win in the general and which he only barely won over Rick Santorum in the Republican primary.

That’s because Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson (R) told the Libertarian Party last month that Johnson filed his paperwork withdrawing from the GOP presidential primary back in November 2011 three minutes too late (4:03 instead of 4 p.m., according to a letter from Johnson’s office to the Libertarian Party), and thus fell prey to the state’s “sore-loser law,” which bars candidates who lose in a party primary from switching to another party to run in the general election. Most other states have similar laws; but rarely are they used to keep presidential candidates off ballot the ballot, according to experts.

America’s Hidden Austerity Program
By BEN POLAK and PETER K. SCHOTT

Ben Polak is the chairman of the economics department at Yale University. Peter K. Schott is a professor of economics at the Yale School of Management.

Why is the recovery from this recession different from recoveries from past recessions? In the previous two recessions, it took 32 months for nonfarm employment to reattain its June 1990 peak, and 48 months for it to reattain its January 2001 peak. Assuming the economy keeps adding nonfarm employment at the current rate, it will have taken 88 months to reattain its January 2008 peak. The explanation most often heard is that “financial crises are different”: after a debt crisis, shaken consumers are reluctant to spend and shaken firms are reluctant to hire, slowing private-sector job growth even after the recession has bottomed out.

Today’s Economist

Perspectives from expert contributors.

There is some truth in this, but it is not the whole story. In fact, while the latest recession was particularly deep, the recovery in private-sector employment, once it finally started, has not been particularly slow by recent historical standards. In the 27 months since the start of the current employment recovery, the private sector has added 4.3 million jobs, fewer than the 5.0 million it added in the 27 months after February 1992 but not many fewer than the 4.5 million it added in the equivalent period after August 2003.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

But there is something historically different about this recession and its aftermath: in the past, local government employment has been almost recession-proof. This time it’s not. Going back as long as the data have been collected (1955), with the one exception of the 1981 recession, local government employment continued to grow almost every month regardless of what the economy threw at it. But since the latest recession began, local government employment has fallen by 3 percent, and is still falling. In the equivalent period following the 1990 and 2001 recessions, local government employment grew 7.7 and 5.2 percent. Even following the 1981 recession, by this stage local government employment was up by 1.4 percent.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Who is losing these local government jobs? In 1981 it was mostly teachers. Now, the losses are shared by teachers and other local government workers alike.

State government is much less important than local because it is a much smaller share of total nonfarm employment: 4 percent versus 10 percent. Nevertheless, a similar story can be told there. This far into each recession since 1955, state government employment had grown. Since the start of the latest recession, state government employment is still down 1.2 percent.

Without this hidden austerity program, the economy would look very different. If state and local governments had followed the pattern of the previous two recessions, they would have added 1.4 million to 1.9 million jobs and overall unemployment would be 7.0 to 7.3 percent instead of 8.2 percent.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Why is this happening? One possibility is that we are witnessing a secular change in state and local politics, with voters no longer willing to pay for an ever-larger work force. An alternative explanation is that even though many state and local governments are constrained not to run deficits, they can muddle through a standard recession without cutting jobs. But when hit by a huge recession like that of 1981 or the latest one, the usual mix of creative accounting and shifting in capital expenditures cannot absorb the shock, and jobs have to go.

It has become commonplace to contrast the American and European responses to the Great Recession, with stimulus in the former and austerity in the latter. European austerity has been at the level of member states and local governments — there is no meaningful federal government of Europe to provide either stimulus or austerity. But the United States has also seen unprecedented austerity at the level of state and local governments, and this austerity has slowed the job recovery.

On June 10 2012 13:00 xDaunt wrote:

Don't mind him. If he wants to bend over backwards to defend Obama's stupid comment when not even Obama will dare defend it, that's his business. Everyone knows Obama jumped the shark, and no sane person believes that the private sector is in good shape, particularly as it appears that we are about to be dragged into another recession by the mess in Europe and slowdowns in China and India.

On June 13 2012 07:18 Zharak wrote:
Couldn't even force myself to chose in the poll in the beginning of the thread, both choices are horrible imo. Doubt Romney will win, lets hope for a better alternative next election.

On June 13 2012 06:59 Defacer wrote:



I believe Obama was comparing the public sector to the private sector. Still, it's gaffe on par with Romney liking to fire people.

The corporate sector is enjoying record profits since Obama took office. The problem is that small business and the middle class is getting crushed.



Where's this socialist America all the Republicans are complaining about?

On June 13 2012 12:56 smarty pants wrote:

Also anyone who uses references from the Federal Reserve should be removed from discussion. I wonder if you can comprehend the fact that the government cooks the books.

On June 13 2012 13:21 Probe1 wrote:
It looks like in 2010 there was a 100% increase in corporate profits after Obama was elected. So I still don't know what the hell you're trying to say there. Wait, reread your post more carefully. You're saying that if anyone disagrees with you they are wrong. And if they disprove you then their evidence is wrong.

On June 13 2012 13:24 Defacer wrote:


How is percentage change more relevant?

Go ahead. Try to remove me from the discussion from behind that keyboard over there.

[B]On June 13 2012 13:24 Defacer wrote:

How is percentage change more relevant?

Go ahead. Try to remove me from the discussion from behind that keyboard over there.

[B]On June 13 2012 13:12 oldgregg wrote:

how is percent change more precise? the actual numbers are what we are interested in. You are the one who is twisting the statistics not him

On June 13 2012 13:55 BluePanther wrote:



Because saying "record profits" is dumb when there is constant inflation. Likewise percentage change is also a useless measure because it gives no perspective.

On June 13 2012 14:17 Defacer wrote:
You see, I like discussing things with you because you can answer a straight question without being a douche bag.