This. You should stay home. I encourage everybody not to vote. By voting for either party you're implicitly approving their actions in government. I dream of a day when nobody comes out to vote.
Bottom line is that Obama should be ashamed of his handling of the economy, and convincing people that "he just needs more time" is, well, not convincing at all.
Bottom line is that you should be ashamed of ignoring the fact that the economy is getting better and has been getting better, that Obama's unemployment record is significantly better than Bush's, and that "just needing more time" makes complete sense if things are getting better because, well, you'd want things to continue getting better- which is the "convincing" part.
There are close to 2 million fewer jobs available in the country now than when President Obama took office. With a smaller number of overall jobs to draw from, the number of unemployed people naturally shrinks. The official Labor Department numbers also do not count the vase number of people who have given up looking for work entirely. With all of this taken into account, the real unemployment rate is actually estimated at a staggering 14.5%. The number of people who are currently not in the labor force has soared to nearly 88 million. The administration can cheer 7.8% and blame previous presidents all they want, but they cannot change basic math. Eighty-eight million people who are eligible to work are not working. Millions are actively looking and cannot find a job, while others still have to settle for part-time employment. Which is not considered in the unemployment percentage. A number which will go up if more companies hire part time employees like Darden because they cannot afford Obamacare.
In 2006, when the Democrats and the liberal media were frantically trying to say Bush had already driven the country into a massive recession, the Dow Jones was approaching 14,000 points and unemployment averaged 4.6%. The administration could be playing the expectations game. Claim that a number that used to be appalling is now a blessing and hope people come to accept it. President Obama’s Keynesian style economic policies have not led to some miraculous recovery, although he’s no doubt hoping that there are enough people out there unaware of the facts to boost him through the election. The manner in which the administration puts out information is an insult to the American peoples, intelligence. Yes, other administrations have played this game before, but wasn’t this supposed to be the most transparent administration of all time?
First, you're measuring from teh wrong point. The peak of the decline initiated by the collapse of 08 didn't occur until fall 2009 (as you may know, employment is a trailing indicator). At the height of the recession in October 2009, there were 138.2 million people employed. There were 142.9 people employed now. PPease inform me how 142.9 > 138.2, and how you generated your number.
This is not true. That's true. What was that figure in the past during "full employment"? Of course, a lot of that is people retiring, as well as delayed retirements. The # of people not in the labor force was expected to go up - and it's expected to do so in the coming decades as well. It's the baby-boomer population retiring and why there are problems with entitlement programs. True, but sort of irrelevant. Also true - and is always true, even during the good times. Of course, if companies like Darden shift to part-time work, then it creates more jobs. Is 3 people working 40 hours better or worse than 4 people working 30 hours?
Please find me one single example of "Democrats and the liberal media frantically trying to say Bush had already driven the country into a massive recession" in 2006. Please provide a link and attribution. Also, a cached copy, if you are able to do so.
Yes. And Real Unemployment was actually 15% when Obama started. Unemployment overall has gone down from when he started to now. Bureau of Labor Statistics
I really don't agree with this statement. That is much like saying polls are useless because people could change their mind at the last minute. This is why there are general polls that ask people who they support vs polls that filter the likely voters. Candidates will campaign where it matters the most; swings states and which base they can energize the most. Roughly 75-80% of people are straight ticket people. The worst defeat was a 60.7 - 37.5%. One has to be a really bad candidate against a good solid candidate to get that kind of defeat. Essentially, if you are in a party minority and can't muster up 40%, your vote doesn't count.
A Brief History of Unemployment Please start here while I continue to gather more sources. Once you have caught up then we can have a nice fire side chat.
You can stop - I will help you out. Here's the 2009 survey at the nadir of the recession. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_11062009.htm 138,275,000 americans employed. Here's last months. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm 142,974,000 americans employed Please prove to me how 142,974,000 < 138,275,000 Thanks in advance.
Obama has shown he reads well from a Teleprompter. If you are saying that he reads from a Teleprompter 99% of the time he speaks to the public, then you have a debatable point.
Great point...what does this say about every other politician that reads from a teleprompter and still can't sound eloquent? Tell me that, and you will have a debatable point.
Hey fellow Coloradan (Coloradoan?), thanks again for the advice on moving to Boulder, it's been fantastic so far. In the long run, the economy is a red herring. As much as liberals and conservatives love to take shots at each other over "class warfare" and such, it's simply an opiate for the voters. Corporations and lobbyists will still control policy, and there will still be a revolving door between the heads of the financial industry and the top presidential advisers. Mitt Romney has already been quoted that the economy is going to improve even if he doesn't do a thing. Additionally, the Senate and House are very likely to remain divided, meaning no end in sight to the gridlock. Most reasonable people would understand that a president has little control over the price of oil, or droughts that affect the prices of food. On foreign policy, it's unlikely that there will be significant change; both will keep the military budget unnecessarily high, both will see radical Islamist violence under their watch, and both will aggressively use the Patriot Act to further erode civil liberty. For the most part, I believe they are both moderates who believe that some progress is still better than no progress, even if it's not exactly what they want. You can clearly see this pragmatic viewpoint in how the President has dealt with a very hostile minority party in congress, and in how the Governor worked with a dominant opposition in Massachusetts. If you are truly an undecided voter, you should be absolutely thrilled with your two choices this year; it truly is a no lose situation, unless you're a radical neo-con or a borderline communist. I personally believe voters this year should base their decisions on the composition of Supreme Court. It is one third of our federal government, and has been steadily accumulating power since the 1950s. Every judicial nomination is a way of a president passing a law that cannot be repealed for 20-30 years, and has only ever been blocked a few times in history. Currently, the court has 5 relatively young judges, 2 liberals: Kagan, 52 and Sotomayor, 58, and 3 conservatives: Roberts, 57, Alito, 62, and Thomas, 64. Of the senior side of the court, you have Breyer, 74, Scalia and Kennedy, both 76, and Ginsberg, 79. It is almost a certainty that Ginsberg will retire soon; if Governor Romney wins election and re-election, it would be very difficult to see her continuing to wait for 8 more years. Assuming Romney nominates a severely conservative judge to the bench to replace one of its most liberal, we would see a 6 member conservative majority, one that would almost certainly overturn Roe v. Wade, and protect the Defense of Marriage Act. It would almost certainly be the most partisan court in the history of our country, and would remain so for 15-20 years, with not a single thing you or I could do about it. Conversely, there is also a good chance the opposite could be true. If President Obama wins re-election, the economy improves, and the health-care law continues to grow in popularity, it would seem natural that Secretary of State Clinton would win in 2016, putting Scalia and Kennedy into a similar spot as Ginsburg, being forced to postpone retirement for 8 years, and opening the door to having a liberal majority for the first time in decades. It would also represent the only feasible way of defeating Citizens United and taking a tiny slice of power away from Corporations and wealthy individuals. So that is my choice; I honestly believe that the economic situation of this country will improve regardless of who is president, and whoever wins this election is going to be the party that gets to take credit for it. With that credit comes the ability to shape the social and moral issues of this country for the next quarter century and beyond.
