Recovery Summer?

[Cutlass]

Bounce from health care?: Poll: Affordable Care Act will hurt economy, not help

You will not find one iota of comparison of the two visions here. This thread from my PoV is simply to examine the fruit of Obama's economic vision. After all he was the one that stated and I quote “if I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”

While it is true that the economy is Obama's biggest problem when it comes to reelection, it also remains true that the economy and fiscal situation are the work of the Republicans. It is Obama's failure to move the country away from Republican economics that is his failure. The primary failure of Republicans is to have Republican economics in the first place.

 

[Leoreth]

The indignity of it being suggested that Americans might live like people from other countries.

No, it's the admission that the American welfare system is crap.

 

[Angst]

Just to put it out there, "It's bad, but not as bad as it would've been with your plan" is a horrible argument because it's kind of putting forth a hypothetical situation and judging it without implementation.

I'm saying this to the liberals in this thread.

Oh, I agree with you, I just don't think it's the way going about the problems presented in the OP.

 

[Integral]

If other countries can get by with much higher unemployment, why can't America?

Then again I could be wrong about other countries having higher unemployment. I think we're at 7% here in Canada.

I remember the unemployment in Poland being 5% at some point.. and that being heralded as a very low number. 8% isn't that much higher.

What would be an ideal unemployment % for America?

Ballparking...prolly 'bout 6%.

 

[Cutlass]

Ballparking...prolly 'bout 6%.

I'd say 4%.....

 

[Ajidica]

When we had 4% unemployment under Clinton, wasn't it considered absurdly low?

 

[Cutlass]

When we had 4% unemployment under Clinton, wasn't it considered absurdly low?

By the standards of people who had long since given up on the idea that people should be able to find jobs. In the failed attempt to have a full employment law in the 1940s, the goal was 3%. In the failed attempt to have a full employment law in the 1970s the goal was 4%. In the 70s economists actually gave up on the concept of real full employment and decided that the "full employment rate of unemployment" is 5% or so. That was revised to 6-6.5% when Reagan was in office. But nothing I know of economics suggests that there is any actual problem with 4%, and vast benefits from the idea. 6% is flat out unacceptable. 6% means that workers can kiss off real raises, essentially forever. And that is unsustainable as economic policy. The "full employment rate of unemployment" is really about how high unemployment needs to be to keep labor in line and not getting pay raises. Where the lack of pay raises is the primary failure of the American economy over the past 30 years.

Unemployment must be low enough to force up labor costs substantially, or we're screwed as a nation in the long run. And we might as well just surrender to China now.

 

[kochman]

Do the republicans have a real plan beyond "Obama's plan is bad"?

We don't know, it never gets even consider in the Senate.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I think the money on Obama is at least marginally safer if we're being realistic. It's certainly possible for Romney to win, and it's not even overwhelmingly unlikely, but it's still remains noticeably less likely.

That said, there's still time for Romney to touch a firefly girl or Obama to give guns to... oh nvm

 

[kochman]

I think the money on Obama is at least marginally safer if we're being realistic. It's certainly possible for Romney to win, and it's not even overwhelmingly unlikely, but it's still remains noticeably less likely.

That said, there's still time for Romney to touch a firefly girl or Obama to give guns to... oh nvm

Incumbents generally win, so it is an uphill battle for Mitt, because the number one rule of American politics... vote for what scares you least... as your two choices will scare you.
The unknown is almost always scarier than the known (even if the know is a failure).

 

[History_Buff]

How different is the unemployment metric between the US and other places, like Canada or <Insert West European Country Here>?

 

[FriendlyFire]

Its okay though, Obama will just say he said created OR SAVED, and then declare he saved 100 million jobs without any way to verify that like he always does.

Silly Patroklos
Obama will use hes executive power to create 100 Million jobs.

(The recent silliness with Patroklos explosive rage at Obamas executive amnesty when Bush also did the very same was hilarious)

 

[kochman]

How different is the unemployment metric between the US and other places, like Canada or <Insert West European Country Here>?

Bad is bad, doesn't matter if other places are as bad or worse.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

By the standards of people who had long since given up on the idea that people should be able to find jobs. In the failed attempt to have a full employment law in the 1940s, the goal was 3%. In the failed attempt to have a full employment law in the 1970s the goal was 4%. In the 70s economists actually gave up on the concept of real full employment and decided that the "full employment rate of unemployment" is 5% or so. That was revised to 6-6.5% when Reagan was in office. But nothing I know of economics suggests that there is any actual problem with 4%, and vast benefits from the idea. 6% is flat out unacceptable. 6% means that workers can kiss off real raises, essentially forever. And that is unsustainable as economic policy. The "full employment rate of unemployment" is really about how high unemployment needs to be to keep labor in line and not getting pay raises. Where the lack of pay raises is the primary failure of the American economy over the past 30 years.

Unemployment must be low enough to force up labor costs substantially, or we're screwed as a nation in the long run. And we might as well just surrender to China now.

And under Calvin Coolidge, unemployment averaged 3.3% and for a while dropped as low a 1.8%. That is what came from specifically rejecting any attempts for the government to try to stimulate the economy or boost employment.

 

[History_Buff]

Bad is bad, doesn't matter if other places are as bad or worse.

Well if we're going to compare the US to other places, then yes, it absolutely does matter how that metric is computed. If the US is using a different standard than our comparator, then it won't really tell us anything.

 

[Cutlass]

And under Calvin Coolidge, unemployment averaged 3.3% and for a while dropped as low a 1.8%. That is what came from specifically rejecting any attempts for the government to try to stimulate the economy or boost employment.

Different circumstances. Things like that have only occasionally happened in an economy. And they were always offset by repeated very high unemployment during frequent server recessions and depressions. After WWII we ended depressions and moderated recessions by an order of magnitude by having a government that wouldn't allow that any longer. Everyone is better off as a result.

A number of things changed through the 70s and 80s. But what matters most is a deficit of net new business investment, which essentially did not exist at all during the Reagan and GW Bush administrations. Those administrations that came closest to Coolidge produced the worst long term results. And vast public deficits as well.

 

[holy king]

meh, obama frecked up the health care reform (still private companies and the state forces everyone to pay them. seriously?),
the wars he inherited (what are us troops still doing in the middle east?)
and the econmic crisis (bailing out private companies with public money and the let them continue whatever the hell they wish to?).

his presidency has been a failure of gigantic proportions and i dont see why anyone would want to re-elect him anyway.

and now dont tell me he's one of only two candidates, because that's all in your head.

 

[amadeus]

I wish he was one of two candidates. Instead, Obama is one of one candidate.

 

[Cutlass]

Just out of curiosity, what about Romney makes you not consider him a candidate at all?

 

[kochman]

meh, obama frecked up the health care reform (still private companies and the state forces everyone to pay them. seriously?),
the wars he inherited (what are us troops still doing in the middle east?)
and the econmic crisis (bailing out private companies with public money and the let them continue whatever the hell they wish to?).

his presidency has been a failure of gigantic proportions and i dont see why anyone would want to re-elect him anyway.

and now dont tell me he's one of only two candidates, because that's all in your head.

At this point, he is one of only two viable candidates.
That's not in anyone's head... that's the sad reality.

And yes, I agree with everything you said about his failures.
Time to try something new, since we know what we have is a failure.