|
|
On July 06 2012 10:04 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2012 09:14 Grumbels wrote:On July 06 2012 08:57 Leporello wrote:
We've been on the right side of many of the world's struggles, usually in a rather deciding fashion. Some countries don't hold that kind of clout, and some people might be jealous of that.
We've had slavery, internment camps, institutional racism, we've funded terrorism, supported and instituted violent regimes, and yet I'd still take our record, tainted as it is, over most other countries. England was an Empire that killed and maimed people across the globe for centuries. Germany.... need I say more. You're Dutch -- you guys colonized as much as you could, and used slaves like the rest of the colonists. The demure nature of your history is more a reflection on your inability than your higher morals.
"At least we weren't as bad as Nazi Germany". Nice standards you have there. In any case, my point is simply that extolling the virtues of the United States' values, would be living in a fantasy world. Because virtually all USA foreign policy ever has been imperialist and quite gruesome, so I'd simply distrust anyone that would go on about the noble legacy of the USA and its need to set a moral example etc. That's just to say, I don't think you can fix the country from within 'the system'. That also means voting or caring about one president over the other is mostly futile. (even if I would advise any person to vote for Obama simply because he's slightly more progressively minded - just don't get emotionally invested though ) edit: whoops, confused you with the other person that replied to me :/ With all due respect, name one other country in the history of the world that has passed over as much conquered territory as the US in the past 100 years?
the soviet union?
|
On July 06 2012 09:51 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2012 09:24 farvacola wrote:On July 06 2012 09:14 Grumbels wrote:On July 06 2012 08:57 Leporello wrote:
We've been on the right side of many of the world's struggles, usually in a rather deciding fashion. Some countries don't hold that kind of clout, and some people might be jealous of that.
We've had slavery, internment camps, institutional racism, we've funded terrorism, supported and instituted violent regimes, and yet I'd still take our record, tainted as it is, over most other countries. England was an Empire that killed and maimed people across the globe for centuries. Germany.... need I say more. You're Dutch -- you guys colonized as much as you could, and used slaves like the rest of the colonists. The demure nature of your history is more a reflection on your inability than your higher morals.
"At least we weren't as bad as Nazi Germany". Nice standards you have there. In any case, my point is simply that extolling the virtues of the United States in a sort of idealized world where your 'core values' are actually reflected in the country's politics, would be living a fantasy world. Because virtually all USA foreign policy ever has been imperialist and quite gruesome, so I'd simply distrust anyone that would go on about the noble legacy of the USA and its need to set a moral example etc. That's just to say, I don't think you can fix the country from within 'the system'. That also means voting or caring about one president over the other is mostly futile. (even if I would advise any person to vote for Obama simply because he's slightly more progressively minded - just don't get emotionally invested though ) edit: whoops, confused you with the other person that replied to me :/ No one said anything about an idealized world, that I hold fundamental beliefs in terms of a "right" civic duty is something else entirely. At the end of the day, choices must be made in reality, I only hope that we at least try. Then again, you just blanketly labeled the body of US foreign policy as imperialist and quite gruesome, which is true in a remote and pedantic sense, only I didn't take you for a twelve year old. You did. You said there was a core of civic ideals in the United States that you regarded highly. But I don't think those ideals have much meaning when indeed USA policy has historically not reflected those ideals, so I would distrust efforts to put any faith in them.
Before you argue further in regards to things you obviously only pretend to understand, I'd recommend reading Ronald Dworkin's "A Matter of Principle" as I consider it par for the course in contemplating the aim of a contemporary liberal, at least within the context of my own views. Then again, you're here to country bash, oversimplify, and "dish up some reality, bro". Please, surprise me.
|
On July 06 2012 10:07 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2012 10:04 BluePanther wrote:On July 06 2012 09:14 Grumbels wrote:On July 06 2012 08:57 Leporello wrote:
We've been on the right side of many of the world's struggles, usually in a rather deciding fashion. Some countries don't hold that kind of clout, and some people might be jealous of that.
We've had slavery, internment camps, institutional racism, we've funded terrorism, supported and instituted violent regimes, and yet I'd still take our record, tainted as it is, over most other countries. England was an Empire that killed and maimed people across the globe for centuries. Germany.... need I say more. You're Dutch -- you guys colonized as much as you could, and used slaves like the rest of the colonists. The demure nature of your history is more a reflection on your inability than your higher morals.
"At least we weren't as bad as Nazi Germany". Nice standards you have there. In any case, my point is simply that extolling the virtues of the United States' values, would be living in a fantasy world. Because virtually all USA foreign policy ever has been imperialist and quite gruesome, so I'd simply distrust anyone that would go on about the noble legacy of the USA and its need to set a moral example etc. That's just to say, I don't think you can fix the country from within 'the system'. That also means voting or caring about one president over the other is mostly futile. (even if I would advise any person to vote for Obama simply because he's slightly more progressively minded - just don't get emotionally invested though ) edit: whoops, confused you with the other person that replied to me :/ With all due respect, name one other country in the history of the world that has passed over as much conquered territory as the US in the past 100 years? the soviet union?
they only passed because they knew we'd object. And I'd be surprised if they actually passed on more land.
|
On July 06 2012 07:43 DamnCats wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2012 06:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 06 2012 04:35 Danglars wrote:On July 05 2012 08:31 Adila wrote:On July 05 2012 08:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 05 2012 05:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:So not only has Romney just changed messages within 2 days he has created further chaos for the RNC by saying he essentially raised taxes while Governor thus forcing the RNC to defend a tax increase. In an interview with CBS News on Wednesday, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act makes clear that the law’s individual mandate “is a tax.”
“The majority of the court said it’s a tax, and therefore, it is a tax. They have spoken, there’s no way around that,” Romney told CBS’s Chief Political Correspondent Jan Crawford.
The characterization contradicts the message from Romney’s chief strategist Eric Fehrnstrom on Monday, in which he said the campaign believed the mandate was a penalty, not a tax. Source It's silly that he needs to defend it at all. All he should have to say is "different time, different place, different law" and that should be the end of it. But no, we have to have the stupid "but golly I thought all taxes were bad?" debate. Well, when the Republican dogma is "All taxes are bad", then we have to have the stupid debate and we have to watch Romney twist, turn, and barrel roll in an attempt to make sense. Which is why he was a terrible candidate from the start. You can't campaign against detestable legislation when you passed something similar on a smaller scale. It looks bad even taking into consideration structural (structural) difference between powers of states and federal government. I disagree with that. Romneycare was and remains a very popular piece of innovative legislation that was created with a lot of community input and liked by both Republicans and Democrats. Obamacare by contrast isn't nearly as popular, is very partisan and is largely a more (needlessly) complex copy of Romenycare. I think it is a good example of Romney being a better leader for his constituents than Obama. Did Romney's plan have $200m spent on attack ads for it? Gee, I wonder why the PPACA is not as popular... even though like Omnipresent said, they're virtually identical. edit: Furthermore, did Romney have a democrat leader in the senate making it his only business to do anything to hinder Romney's progress on the bill? That couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the PPACA is more partisan right?
The state legislature in MA at the time was (and is currently) heavily controlled by Democrats (75%+). If it was something Democrats were not for it simply wouldn't have existed. Romney vetoed 8 parts of the bill and all veto's were overturned ("Romneycare" was not simply a Romney plan). Romneycare was also really easy to pull off in MA since, at the time MA already had the lowest rate of uninsured (~8% then, ~2% now) so there was a far smaller economic and budgetary impact.
MA is a very liberal state - we like these kinds of laws here - so the plan was and remains extremely popular. The same can't be said for the rest of the nation - different people, different beliefs, different wants, different needs. Obama should know that.
|
On July 06 2012 10:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2012 07:43 DamnCats wrote:On July 06 2012 06:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 06 2012 04:35 Danglars wrote:On July 05 2012 08:31 Adila wrote:On July 05 2012 08:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 05 2012 05:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:So not only has Romney just changed messages within 2 days he has created further chaos for the RNC by saying he essentially raised taxes while Governor thus forcing the RNC to defend a tax increase. In an interview with CBS News on Wednesday, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act makes clear that the law’s individual mandate “is a tax.”
“The majority of the court said it’s a tax, and therefore, it is a tax. They have spoken, there’s no way around that,” Romney told CBS’s Chief Political Correspondent Jan Crawford.
The characterization contradicts the message from Romney’s chief strategist Eric Fehrnstrom on Monday, in which he said the campaign believed the mandate was a penalty, not a tax. Source It's silly that he needs to defend it at all. All he should have to say is "different time, different place, different law" and that should be the end of it. But no, we have to have the stupid "but golly I thought all taxes were bad?" debate. Well, when the Republican dogma is "All taxes are bad", then we have to have the stupid debate and we have to watch Romney twist, turn, and barrel roll in an attempt to make sense. Which is why he was a terrible candidate from the start. You can't campaign against detestable legislation when you passed something similar on a smaller scale. It looks bad even taking into consideration structural (structural) difference between powers of states and federal government. I disagree with that. Romneycare was and remains a very popular piece of innovative legislation that was created with a lot of community input and liked by both Republicans and Democrats. Obamacare by contrast isn't nearly as popular, is very partisan and is largely a more (needlessly) complex copy of Romenycare. I think it is a good example of Romney being a better leader for his constituents than Obama. Did Romney's plan have $200m spent on attack ads for it? Gee, I wonder why the PPACA is not as popular... even though like Omnipresent said, they're virtually identical. edit: Furthermore, did Romney have a democrat leader in the senate making it his only business to do anything to hinder Romney's progress on the bill? That couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the PPACA is more partisan right? The state legislature in MA at the time was (and is currently) heavily controlled by Democrats (75%+). If it was something Democrats were not for it simply wouldn't have existed. Romney vetoed 8 parts of the bill and all veto's were overturned ("Romneycare" was not simply a Romney plan). Romneycare was also really easy to pull off in MA since, at the time MA already had the lowest rate of uninsured (~8% then, ~2% now) so there was a far smaller economic and budgetary impact. MA is a very liberal state - we like these kinds of laws here - so the plan was and remains extremely popular. The same can't be said for the rest of the nation - different people, different beliefs, different wants, different needs. Obama should know that.
Another distinction that eveyrone seems to miss is that Massachusetts is a STATE
Moderate republicans do not object to states meddling in this type of thing.
|
On July 06 2012 10:16 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2012 09:51 Grumbels wrote:On July 06 2012 09:24 farvacola wrote:On July 06 2012 09:14 Grumbels wrote:On July 06 2012 08:57 Leporello wrote:
We've been on the right side of many of the world's struggles, usually in a rather deciding fashion. Some countries don't hold that kind of clout, and some people might be jealous of that.
We've had slavery, internment camps, institutional racism, we've funded terrorism, supported and instituted violent regimes, and yet I'd still take our record, tainted as it is, over most other countries. England was an Empire that killed and maimed people across the globe for centuries. Germany.... need I say more. You're Dutch -- you guys colonized as much as you could, and used slaves like the rest of the colonists. The demure nature of your history is more a reflection on your inability than your higher morals.
"At least we weren't as bad as Nazi Germany". Nice standards you have there. In any case, my point is simply that extolling the virtues of the United States in a sort of idealized world where your 'core values' are actually reflected in the country's politics, would be living a fantasy world. Because virtually all USA foreign policy ever has been imperialist and quite gruesome, so I'd simply distrust anyone that would go on about the noble legacy of the USA and its need to set a moral example etc. That's just to say, I don't think you can fix the country from within 'the system'. That also means voting or caring about one president over the other is mostly futile. (even if I would advise any person to vote for Obama simply because he's slightly more progressively minded - just don't get emotionally invested though ) edit: whoops, confused you with the other person that replied to me :/ No one said anything about an idealized world, that I hold fundamental beliefs in terms of a "right" civic duty is something else entirely. At the end of the day, choices must be made in reality, I only hope that we at least try. Then again, you just blanketly labeled the body of US foreign policy as imperialist and quite gruesome, which is true in a remote and pedantic sense, only I didn't take you for a twelve year old. You did. You said there was a core of civic ideals in the United States that you regarded highly. But I don't think those ideals have much meaning when indeed USA policy has historically not reflected those ideals, so I would distrust efforts to put any faith in them. Before you argue further in regards to things you obviously only pretend to understand, I'd recommend reading Ronald Dworkin's "A Matter of Principle" as I consider it par for the course in contemplating the aim of a contemporary liberal, at least within the context of my own views. Then again, you're here to country bash, oversimplify, and "dish up some reality, bro". Please, surprise me.
Oh well, this argument was going off-topic anyway. I didn't follow the earlier discussion here, I just wanted to make the general point that one should distrust putting faith in America's much beloved civic values, since historically they've been a joke.
And sorry, but I'm a bit sensitive to people starting out an argument by calling me a twelve year old, so I hope you can find someone else to act condescending to.
|
Didn't MA also have like some sort of experimental health care practice going on well before Romneycare? Like the federal government was giving them extra funds to create a healtcare pool. That (or maybe the threat of it stopping?) was probably a factor into MA looking into new healthcare options. Not quite sure the specifics really I may be way off, but the point being individual states all have different situations, people, and logistics. Passing Romneycare in one state was FAR different than passing a nation wide Obamacare. Not that anyone seems to care though.
|
On July 06 2012 10:43 Grumbels wrote:
I just wanted to make the general point that one should distrust putting faith in America's much beloved civic values, since historically they've been a joke.
yeah, liberty, justice, freedom, equality.... those are really things to be ashamed of. -_-
We may have black spots, but so does every other country.
|
On July 06 2012 10:39 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2012 10:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 06 2012 07:43 DamnCats wrote:On July 06 2012 06:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 06 2012 04:35 Danglars wrote:On July 05 2012 08:31 Adila wrote:On July 05 2012 08:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 05 2012 05:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:So not only has Romney just changed messages within 2 days he has created further chaos for the RNC by saying he essentially raised taxes while Governor thus forcing the RNC to defend a tax increase. In an interview with CBS News on Wednesday, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act makes clear that the law’s individual mandate “is a tax.”
“The majority of the court said it’s a tax, and therefore, it is a tax. They have spoken, there’s no way around that,” Romney told CBS’s Chief Political Correspondent Jan Crawford.
The characterization contradicts the message from Romney’s chief strategist Eric Fehrnstrom on Monday, in which he said the campaign believed the mandate was a penalty, not a tax. Source It's silly that he needs to defend it at all. All he should have to say is "different time, different place, different law" and that should be the end of it. But no, we have to have the stupid "but golly I thought all taxes were bad?" debate. Well, when the Republican dogma is "All taxes are bad", then we have to have the stupid debate and we have to watch Romney twist, turn, and barrel roll in an attempt to make sense. Which is why he was a terrible candidate from the start. You can't campaign against detestable legislation when you passed something similar on a smaller scale. It looks bad even taking into consideration structural (structural) difference between powers of states and federal government. I disagree with that. Romneycare was and remains a very popular piece of innovative legislation that was created with a lot of community input and liked by both Republicans and Democrats. Obamacare by contrast isn't nearly as popular, is very partisan and is largely a more (needlessly) complex copy of Romenycare. I think it is a good example of Romney being a better leader for his constituents than Obama. Did Romney's plan have $200m spent on attack ads for it? Gee, I wonder why the PPACA is not as popular... even though like Omnipresent said, they're virtually identical. edit: Furthermore, did Romney have a democrat leader in the senate making it his only business to do anything to hinder Romney's progress on the bill? That couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the PPACA is more partisan right? The state legislature in MA at the time was (and is currently) heavily controlled by Democrats (75%+). If it was something Democrats were not for it simply wouldn't have existed. Romney vetoed 8 parts of the bill and all veto's were overturned ("Romneycare" was not simply a Romney plan). Romneycare was also really easy to pull off in MA since, at the time MA already had the lowest rate of uninsured (~8% then, ~2% now) so there was a far smaller economic and budgetary impact. MA is a very liberal state - we like these kinds of laws here - so the plan was and remains extremely popular. The same can't be said for the rest of the nation - different people, different beliefs, different wants, different needs. Obama should know that. Another distinction that eveyrone seems to miss is that Massachusetts is a STATEModerate republicans do not object to states meddling in this type of thing.
Sigh, whatever happened to the idea that the states can be used to experiment for successful models that we can use nationwide? This is exactly the sort of thing we should be doing.
Also, Grumbels, what's with the America-bashing? That's not cool, man.
|
On July 06 2012 12:00 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2012 10:39 BluePanther wrote:On July 06 2012 10:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 06 2012 07:43 DamnCats wrote:On July 06 2012 06:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 06 2012 04:35 Danglars wrote:On July 05 2012 08:31 Adila wrote:On July 05 2012 08:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 05 2012 05:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:So not only has Romney just changed messages within 2 days he has created further chaos for the RNC by saying he essentially raised taxes while Governor thus forcing the RNC to defend a tax increase. In an interview with CBS News on Wednesday, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act makes clear that the law’s individual mandate “is a tax.”
“The majority of the court said it’s a tax, and therefore, it is a tax. They have spoken, there’s no way around that,” Romney told CBS’s Chief Political Correspondent Jan Crawford.
The characterization contradicts the message from Romney’s chief strategist Eric Fehrnstrom on Monday, in which he said the campaign believed the mandate was a penalty, not a tax. Source It's silly that he needs to defend it at all. All he should have to say is "different time, different place, different law" and that should be the end of it. But no, we have to have the stupid "but golly I thought all taxes were bad?" debate. Well, when the Republican dogma is "All taxes are bad", then we have to have the stupid debate and we have to watch Romney twist, turn, and barrel roll in an attempt to make sense. Which is why he was a terrible candidate from the start. You can't campaign against detestable legislation when you passed something similar on a smaller scale. It looks bad even taking into consideration structural (structural) difference between powers of states and federal government. I disagree with that. Romneycare was and remains a very popular piece of innovative legislation that was created with a lot of community input and liked by both Republicans and Democrats. Obamacare by contrast isn't nearly as popular, is very partisan and is largely a more (needlessly) complex copy of Romenycare. I think it is a good example of Romney being a better leader for his constituents than Obama. Did Romney's plan have $200m spent on attack ads for it? Gee, I wonder why the PPACA is not as popular... even though like Omnipresent said, they're virtually identical. edit: Furthermore, did Romney have a democrat leader in the senate making it his only business to do anything to hinder Romney's progress on the bill? That couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the PPACA is more partisan right? The state legislature in MA at the time was (and is currently) heavily controlled by Democrats (75%+). If it was something Democrats were not for it simply wouldn't have existed. Romney vetoed 8 parts of the bill and all veto's were overturned ("Romneycare" was not simply a Romney plan). Romneycare was also really easy to pull off in MA since, at the time MA already had the lowest rate of uninsured (~8% then, ~2% now) so there was a far smaller economic and budgetary impact. MA is a very liberal state - we like these kinds of laws here - so the plan was and remains extremely popular. The same can't be said for the rest of the nation - different people, different beliefs, different wants, different needs. Obama should know that. Another distinction that eveyrone seems to miss is that Massachusetts is a STATEModerate republicans do not object to states meddling in this type of thing. Sigh, whatever happened to the idea that the states can be used to experiment for successful models that we can use nationwide? This is exactly the sort of thing we should be doing. Also, Grumbels, what's with the America-bashing? That's not cool, man.
I wasn't aware that was an "idea"
|
Sure, Americans did a lot of good for the world, no one can argue that.
But the fact is, your government's policy has always been one of conquering, wars, and spreading of their influence.
What's even worse, behind all that politics bullshit, lies a deep, deep web of the real people in power, and that would be the bankers who hold basically ALL the money. We all know that money = power. You see, the US is not run by the republicans or democrats, it is run by the multi billion trillion zillion worth banks. And these banks have several interests, including robbing the people blind, finding oil in other countries, spreading the "American way" to other countries so that their banks turn the citizens into slaves of loans, and well doing everything and anything in order to gain profit no matter the cost. This obvious influence can be felt in my country in the last decade, we are slowly turning into Americans, and that means the worst consumer slave zombies on the planet.
I look at your people, and I truly feel sad for what has become, but it is not the people's fault, because the people are sheep and easy to manipulate, just look at your mass media and the messages they are sending every day. Your society has degenerated so much under the guise of "liberty", free capitalism" and all the other crap they are selling you every day.
On the other hand your military spending is the biggest in the world, and you people don't even have free healthcare. What a nice "government". But then again, if everyone was healthy, what would the pharmaceutical industry do?
Weapons are the no1 export of America, forget apple, forget google, the real money is in weaponry. And you do a hell of a good job in providing everyone with their basic weapon needs.
And don't forget the near-fascist laws that your dear "president" Obama passed, including the right for the state to hold you in prison for 6 months without trial ( which was first used by Israel, what a coincidence ), then you have that tiny law that enables them to strip you of all your human rights if you are "suspected for terrorism".
And then, every 4 years, the American people get a new fun way to waste time and turn their attention from things that actually matter: the presidential election. Certainly a big thing, where people get to choose their new president who will bring change and progress. The people's votes will decide, and the people will be happy.
I could write like this for hours, about how your country bombed your very own soil with over 500 nukes for their nuclear testing, how your banks gave out loans to other countries in the value of your entire state budget, and so on...
But go ahead Americans, have fun, elect your new leader, and be happy that you are living in the greatest country in the world.
|
On July 06 2012 21:24 marconi wrote:
Sure, Americans did a lot of good for the world, no one can argue that.
But the fact is, your government's policy has always been one of conquering, wars, and spreading of their influence.
What's even worse, behind all that politics bullshit, lies a deep, deep web of the real people in power, and that would be the bankers who hold basically ALL the money. We all know that money = power. You see, the US is not run by the republicans or democrats, it is run by the multi billion trillion zillion worth banks. And these banks have several interests, including robbing the people blind, finding oil in other countries, spreading the "American way" to other countries so that their banks turn the citizens into slaves of loans, and well doing everything and anything in order to gain profit no matter the cost. This obvious influence can be felt in my country in the last decade, we are slowly turning into Americans, and that means the worst consumer slave zombies on the planet.
I look at your people, and I truly feel sad for what has become, but it is not the people's fault, because the people are sheep and easy to manipulate, just look at your mass media and the messages they are sending every day. Your society has degenerated so much under the guise of "liberty", free capitalism" and all the other crap they are selling you every day.
On the other hand your military spending is the biggest in the world, and you people don't even have free healthcare. What a nice "government". But then again, if everyone was healthy, what would the pharmaceutical industry do?
Weapons are the no1 export of America, forget apple, forget google, the real money is in weaponry. And you do a hell of a good job in providing everyone with their basic weapon needs.
And don't forget the near-fascist laws that your dear "president" Obama passed, including the right for the state to hold you in prison for 6 months without trial ( which was first used by Israel, what a coincidence ), then you have that tiny law that enables them to strip you of all your human rights if you are "suspected for terrorism".
And then, every 4 years, the American people get a new fun way to waste time and turn their attention from things that actually matter: the presidential election. Certainly a big thing, where people get to choose their new president who will bring change and progress. The people's votes will decide, and the people will be happy.
I could write like this for hours, about how your country bombed your very own soil with over 500 nukes for their nuclear testing, how your banks gave out loans to other countries in the value of your entire state budget, and so on...
But go ahead Americans, have fun, elect your new leader, and be happy that you are living in the greatest country in the world. Banks run America?
You are so oblivious to our ways it's laughable.
|
dunno who's oblivious here mate...
|
WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. employers added only 80,000 jobs in June, a third straight month of weak hiring that shows the economy is still struggling three years after the recession ended. The unemployment rate was unchanged at 8.2 percent, the Labor Department said in its report Friday. The economy added an average of just 75,000 jobs a month in the April-June quarter. That's one-third of the 226,000 a month created in the first quarter. For the first six months of the year, U.S. employers added an average of 150,000 jobs a month. That's fewer than the 161,000 a month for the first half of 2011. And it suggests that three years after the Great Recession officially ended, the job market is weakening instead of strengthening. "It's a disappointing report," said George Mokrzan, director of economics at Huntington National Bank in Columbus, Ohio. He said the job gains are consistent with sluggish economic growth. Stock futures fell modestly after the report came out. Dow Jones industrial average futures were down 24 points before the report at 8:30 a.m., and were down 76 points minutes later. Yields for government bonds sank, an indication that investors were putting money into the Treasury market. The yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury note was 1.59 percent just before the report and 1.56 percent after it came out. A weaker job market has made consumers less confident. They have pulled back on spending, even though gas prices have plunged. High unemployment could shift momentum to Mitt Romney, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee. An Associated Press-GfK poll released last month found that more than half of those surveyed disapproved of President Barack Obama's handling of the economy. The economy is growing too slowly to lower the unemployment rate. Obama is expected to face voters with the highest unemployment rate of any president since the Great Depression, and the economy is the top issue for many voters. Dismal June job figures could also prompt the Federal Reserve to take further action to try to boost the economy. The Fed last month downgraded its economic outlook for 2012. It predicted growth of just 1.9 percent to 2.4 percent. And it doesn't expect the unemployment rate to fall much further this year. Revisions to the job gains in April and May were little changed from the government's previous estimates. There were some good signs in the report. The average work week grew to 34.5 hours from 34.4 in May, boosting many workers' paychecks. And average hourly pay rose 6 cents to $23.50. Hourly pay has increased 2 percent in the past year and is ahead of inflation, which has fallen in recent months along with gas prices. About one-third of the jobs gained in June were in temporary services. Manufacturing added 11,000, its ninth straight month of gains. But growth in factory jobs slowed sharply in the second quarter compared to the first. Health care added 13,000 jobs and financial services gained 5,000. Retailers, transportation firms and government cut jobs. Source: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-employers-add-80-000-123118391.html
Clearly we need less government spending, less stimulus and more austerity to promote "confidence".
|
Another disappointing jobs report.
But with the way polls are now, I wonder if Romney is so bad that Obama can actually win with 8.2% unemployment. I've felt like it had to cross below 8.0% for the president to have the advantage.
Interestingly, I do think additional Keynesian stimulus is more likely with Romney as president than Obama. It won't be something liberals necessarily want (larger DoD budgets, more tax cuts with most other things staying the same) but it is still Keynesian stimulus.
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/us/politics/journal-critique-of-romney-shows-murdoch-doubt-on-candidacy.html?hp
First real article on the conservative Republican opinion of Romney. Murdoch hits it head-on. Romney plays everything safe, not taking stands that would how principles he cares about.
The editorial was a stern reminder of Mr. Romney’s failure to win the trust of the Republican Party’s core conservatives, a group that pays close attention to Mr. Murdoch’s newspapers and cable news outlets.
Uninspiring and politically stuck in the doldrums. If this guy wants turnout, he better get a stunning VP and start preaching the ideals he gets behind and at least sound like he's convinced of them when he tries to tell them to others.
|
On July 06 2012 22:37 Signet wrote:
Another disappointing jobs report.
But with the way polls are now, I wonder if Romney is so bad that Obama can actually win with 8.2% unemployment. I've felt like it had to cross below 8.0% for the president to have the advantage.
Interestingly, I do think additional Keynesian stimulus is more likely with Romney as president than Obama. It won't be something liberals necessarily want (larger DoD budgets, more tax cuts with most other things staying the same) but it is still Keynesian stimulus.
Not likely given that teabaggers have the GOP by the balls, despite the fact that it is desperately needed.
It's quite hypocritical how Romney justifies the seriousness of the fiscal cliff with Keynesian economics on one hand, yet dismisses fiscal stimulus on the other hand.
|
The Tea Party wants more DoD spending and lower taxes. Most of them are older and want Medicare/SS spending to remain in place for them then be cut for everyone else.
They might claim they're going to offset that with cuts to welfare and foreign aid, but the math doesn't add up. (though making the argument might allow them to believe otherwise - yay cognitive dissonance)
|
On July 06 2012 23:24 Danglars wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/us/politics/journal-critique-of-romney-shows-murdoch-doubt-on-candidacy.html?hpFirst real article on the conservative Republican opinion of Romney. Murdoch hits it head-on. Romney plays everything safe, not taking stands that would how principles he cares about. Show nested quote +The editorial was a stern reminder of Mr. Romney’s failure to win the trust of the Republican Party’s core conservatives, a group that pays close attention to Mr. Murdoch’s newspapers and cable news outlets. Uninspiring and politically stuck in the doldrums. If this guy wants turnout, he better get a stunning VP and start preaching the ideals he gets behind and at least sound like he's convinced of them when he tries to tell them to others.
I fucking figured out Romney.
The reason why Romney has been so reticent and muted about his own beliefs and policies is because he thinks he can play both sides. By being vague and noncommittal, he thinks that gives him flexibility with his own party down the road, if he were elected President. He doesn't want to be bound to his promises, on either side of the aisle.
This form of evasiveness is very typical in the corporate world, and standard with jockeying for a promotion, negotiating in a boardroom, building relationships and managing others. Romney is acting like a VP of a corporation that is angling to become it's CEO.
But that's Romney's fundamental flaw. This kind of approach to business (and life) works best when protecting your own interests while pretending to care about others'. Unfortunately, he's a politician, and HIS JOB is to represent other people's interests. When people donate hundreds and millions of dollars to your campaign, or cast their vote for you, there is expectation that you'll be representing the policies that they want.
That's why guys like Murdoch are calling for him to be more vocal about his policies -- they see the game Romney is trying to play. They want Romney to 'go public' with his beliefs so they can keep him to his words and assume some real political risk.
Romney is a business man masquerading as a politician, and if he were president I would not be surprised if his whole party turned on him within the first two years.
|
For that reason, I think the Bain Capital argument is one of the strongest Obama has. Tie Romney to the selfish businessmen who made the recession happen and he'll lose support from those who care about the economy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
