Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/8/11 12:39 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 12/3/11 06:41 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Come on Proteas. You're better than that.

I'm simply calling it like I see it in this instance

Yet you have yourself slighted Obama for the bad economy. Which is it?

At 12/8/11 11:10 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Yet you have yourself slighted Obama for the bad economy.

By doing what, realizing and admitting that the sun doesn't shine out of Obama's ass and that his supporters don't seem to realize that? Well excuse me if I don't partake of the kool-aid you guys are serving.

At 12/8/11 02:51 PM, Proteas wrote: By doing what, realizing and admitting that the sun doesn't shine out of Obama's ass and that his supporters don't seem to realize that? Well excuse me if I don't partake of the kool-aid you guys are serving.

All I am saying is you can't say the President controls the economy when it suits you and he doesn't when it does not.

So which is it? Did President Obama have a hand in the bad economy or should he not be lauded for the recent gain in employment?

Anyone who understands what a free market economy is....will tell you government interference means we are NOT in a FREE MARKET ECONOMY.

Bailing out the banks of the world is going to increase inflation & probably only stave off a collapse !
THe losers will be the RRSP holders & anyone wiht any savings, because the value of your saved money is going DOWN. (that means it will take more of it tomorow to buy the same amount of goods as it does today)

It isn't rocket surgery boys & girls.

Theres a very strong case through out history about fiat money.
I didn't make it up & the history of fiat currencies since Roman times is easily found .
Too bad Obama & the rest of the Banking sector idiots are incapable of opening a history book.

At 12/8/11 03:43 PM, Camarohusky wrote: All I am saying is you can't say the President controls the economy when it suits you and he doesn't when it does not.

Tell gumonshoe that, then.

So which is it? Did President Obama have a hand in the bad economy or should he not be lauded for the recent gain in employment?

It may not be his fault, but at the same time, there's little anybody in the office of the president can do to effect (either positively or negatively) the economy, they can only suggest that the Congress do so.

The economy operates independently of the office of the president, camaro. You know this, I know this, and I said it very plainly, so why you're wanting to split hairs with me and take me to task on some perceived partisan bullshit is beyond me.

At 12/8/11 03:43 PM, Camarohusky wrote: All I am saying is you can't say the President controls the economy when it suits you and he doesn't when it does not.

The thing is it is not an either/or proposition. The economy is largely outside the government's control...however this does not mean that it does not respond to government policies. Government regulation can cause price increases.

On the other hand, fluctuations in the business cycle can effect government coffers.

So which is it? Did President Obama have a hand in the bad economy or should he not be lauded for the recent gain in employment?

Be careful here Camero...the November decrease in unemployment is to be expected going into the holiday season. We'll probably see another decrease in December. We'll have to wait to see January or February numbers to see if this really is long-term gain or short-term high.

I'm from Australia so I'm not sure if my opinion counts.

But aside from getting sidetracked all the time, being inefficient and not being able to do exactly what he wants to do, do you guys agree that Obama has really good speaking, public speaking and negotiation skills?

I mean George Bush was absolutely terrible at that.

But with Obama he seems to have a consistent and agreeable vision/ideals and it seems like all the leaders and ambassadors from other countries really like and respect him. Also he isn't arrogant or irritating at all when he speaks.

At any rate its better than' FORGET ABOUT THE ECONOMY AND CHINA, THE MUSLIMS AND THE MIDDLE EAST AND THE U.S'S MILITARY IS THE REAL BIG ISSUE'

Well, yea. His inauguration speech was awesome, and brought people to tears. TO TEARS.

And I mean, he always said,"yes we can" not, "yes I can" We, as in all of us, working together, compromising. But NOOOOOO, congress can't have that. No compromise for congress. I think we need to impeach half of them.

In the 1700s, congress spent the first 60 years of the countries existence, WORKING on Christmas, on holidays, and NOT TAKING UNNECESSARY DAYS OFF. Today's congress are a bunch of worthless, lazy fucking morons.

At 12/8/11 08:53 PM, TheMason wrote: Be careful here Camero...the November decrease in unemployment is to be expected going into the holiday season. We'll probably see another decrease in December. We'll have to wait to see January or February numbers to see if this really is long-term gain or short-term high.

Translation for those of you who don't work retail;

Sellers of cheaply made chinese goods are going to be firing a lot of people after the holiday season is over, the same people they hired a month or so ago to help with the Black Friday rush and the Christmas season.

At 12/8/11 09:05 PM, Halberd wrote: But aside from getting sidetracked all the time, being inefficient and not being able to do exactly what he wants to do, do you guys agree that Obama has really good speaking, public speaking and negotiation skills?

You realize that not being able to do exactly what he wants to do sorta negates the whole negotiation skills thing, right? But that's okay with you, apparently, because he speaks so well and that makes up for being an otherwise shitty president.

For what its worth the employment numbers are adjusted in an attempt to compensate for holiday employment & under employment. They are also affected, as people have pointed out, when people stop looking for work. 300,000 people stopped looking. These people may have been hired under the table (this is a more frequent practice); they may have simply retired as a lot of the unemployed were elderly; or they may be disenfranchised.

That said, jobs aren't being lost as quickly as people are being hired. Yeah, its still not good enough, but its better.

Frankly, I think Obama wasn't allowed to do enough thanks to this congress and as such isn't really responsible for anything other than stopping the free fall by implementing and overseeing bailouts/tarp/auto industry saving/ etc.

The recent stuff is mostly just the economy slowly trying to come back to life without the aid we could be giving it. That said, Obama does stand to benifit from an improved economy. And frankly I don't think anyone wants a bad one so everyone should have a reason to celebrate if these numbers continue to move the way they have been. Typically once a recovery starts the jobs keep coming in, so we'll see what we're dealing with soon.

At 12/8/11 08:53 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 12/8/11 03:43 PM, Camarohusky wrote: All I am saying is you can't say the President controls the economy when it suits you and he doesn't when it does not.

The thing is it is not an either/or proposition. The economy is largely outside the government's control...however this does not mean that it does not respond to government policies. Government regulation can cause price increases.

On the other hand, fluctuations in the business cycle can effect government coffers.

So which is it? Did President Obama have a hand in the bad economy or should he not be lauded for the recent gain in employment?

Be careful here Camero...the November decrease in unemployment is to be expected going into the holiday season. We'll probably see another decrease in December. We'll have to wait to see January or February numbers to see if this really is long-term gain or short-term high.

I am skeptical of these employment numbers. I have been for years. Ever since I hread that in 2009 when Oregon's unemployment was around 10% that in actuality 17-20% were truly out of work and a total of 25% were underemployed at best.

However, my irritation still stands. I have heard so many slam Obama for the economy and tear him down for the economy and every little economic drop no matter how miniscule became an Obama blunder, but the minute something good happens these same people rush in and start telling others to back off and that the President doesn't control the economy. This is what is bugging me. Inconsistency along political lines bugs me (I know I am guilty of this sometimes too)

It seems that many have made nothing too small to blame Obama for, but nothing is big enough to laud him for.

Personall, I agree with proteas' statement that there is very little a President can do that effects the economy. However, if you're going to assert that Obama is at fault for the economic ills, then man up and admit that there has been some good news in his tenure.

At 12/9/11 11:44 AM, Camarohusky wrote: However, if you're going to assert that Obama is at fault for the economic ills, then man up and admit that there has been some good news in his tenure.

In order for me to "man up and admit" anything of that nature, I would have to subscribe to the myopic viewpoint that he was somehow at fault for the current economic ills, now wouldn't I? I don't.

At 12/2/11 06:57 PM, Warforger wrote: Erm last I checked the President doesn't have too much control over that, it's hard to create new permanent jobs in times of a recession especially that these unemployed could be.

Unless he says 'fudge the stats' but other than that, you're absolutely right. The president has NO real control of the economy.

And the anti-cult of personality against the president wastes no time saying how it got there despite him.

Yeah, I agree, I see more and more people blaming Obama for the economy than actually handing out a solution to fix it.

At 12/2/11 08:36 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

Guess Obama isn't sooooo bad for the economy after all.

If the unemployment rate is the only factor for judging a good presidency, then yes, he isn't too bad.
But you forget some teensy things, like inflation and the debt.

At 12/12/11 11:44 PM, igott wrote:
Yeah, I agree, I see more and more people blaming Obama for the economy than actually handing out a solution to fix it.

They're just trying to take the attention away from the Republican party's past failures.(ie. Bush)

At 12/8/11 10:55 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

Frankly, I think Obama wasn't allowed to do enough thanks to this congress and as such isn't really responsible for anything other than stopping the free fall by implementing and overseeing bailouts/tarp/auto industry saving/ etc.

Thanks for making this point, gum, it's not said often enough.

The congress is comprised of 535 individuals worried over their own reelection campaigns, paying more attention to where their funders are going then whether they sincerely believe this is how the country is supposed to operate. That's a broad generalization, but I have YET to see a SINGLE volunteering effort from ANY congressman to convince me otherwise. Is there a single Buddy Roemer among them, a politician willing to only accept donations from the public as opposed to corporations? If the speech in this country were actually that of the people of this country, we wouldn't have the partisan pinchfight that goes on.

Just so I'm not spouting out of my ass, my example of this is the payroll tax holiday extension being negotiated right now.

Why is a pipeline even being mentioned? Isn't the pipeline it's own issue? Is politics like trading baseball cards? I'll trade you a payroll tax extension only if you give your rare pipeline approval?

I've seen the look of disappointment on Obama's face during his entire term and I feel like very few people actually consider why he does that.

oh yeah, btw gum, the anthology's still going, we should be finished in the next month or two.

Update: Unemployment at 8.1%
Meanwhile, in the nation who has been slashing spending to cut back its deficit...

Funny how I leave for like a year and the economies of the developed world haven't really changed that much. I've read somewhere that the Obama administration is finally seeing the light after this whole Greece/Spanish austerity failure, and might push for stimulus in the second presidency (hell, even the GERMANS are finally seeing the light and might create a fund of 200 billion to spend in infrastructure), if he gets it. Who would have thought that cutting spending in a recessed economy would turn to be self-defeating? Anyone who has read the first chapter of an introductory economics textbook.

the labor force participation rate has declined by half a million people. it is now at a 30-year-low of 64.3 percent. if the labor force participation rate had stayed the same, unemployment would have risen to 8.3 percent. if the participation rate was the same today as it was in june of 2009, unemployment would be near 11 percent. just some things to keep in mind.

note: i'm not saying the economy isnt improving. it is.

unemployment would fall to 0.5% if americans picked oranges

He was doing even better previously but the senate constantly block his suggested bills, plus lots of people have been giving him a hard time about choosing options which will have a better effect on his possible 2nd term presidency. I think he's been doing a wonderful job all along.

Obama is ruining the country. Unemployment has raised so high, where are our jobs Obama?

At 5/11/12 01:55 AM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: Obama is ruining the country. Unemployment has raised so high, where are our jobs Obama?

Ask your conservative boss. If he's honest, which he's likely not, he'll tell you that he sent them to India to make a quick buck.

At 5/11/12 11:19 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 5/11/12 01:55 AM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: Obama is ruining the country. Unemployment has raised so high, where are our jobs Obama?

Ask your conservative boss. If he's honest, which he's likely not, he'll tell you that he sent them to India to make a quick buck.

What's wrong with providing jobs for Indians? They are people too. That's the beauty of capitalism, in particular capitalism in it's unfettered form, it doesn't discriminate.

At 5/11/12 11:23 AM, bismuthfeldspar wrote: What's wrong with providing jobs for Indians? They are people too. That's the beauty of capitalism, in particular capitalism in it's unfettered form, it doesn't discriminate.

Nothing's wrong (save for the fact that third world countries provide thrid rate work) with it, Strongbad wanted to knwo where US jobs went, and I told him the truth.

At 5/11/12 11:30 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Strongbad wanted to knwo where US jobs went, and I told him the truth.

What has changed? Why weren't the jobs already in India?

At 5/11/12 01:55 AM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: Obama is ruining the country. Unemployment has raised so high, where are our jobs Obama?

As Camaro says, the jobs are going to India but free trade isn't the problem, the problem is our government is unfriendly to business, they stifle it with pointless laws and regulations while in China and India they are pretty much free to do whatever they want.

At 5/11/12 12:56 PM, bismuthfeldspar wrote: As Camaro says, the jobs are going to India but free trade isn't the problem, the problem is our government is unfriendly to business, they stifle it with pointless laws and regulations while in China and India they are pretty much free to do whatever they want.

Based on your posts in the other thread, I have to assume you're not a college grad. So let's revert to China and India levels.

Work for 60 hours a week for $10 a week at best. You willing to do that? Well? Are you? (crickets)

When you're willing to work for that loing for that little, THEN you can bitch about our laws, until then, stop being hypocritical.

Obama promised us jobs, health care, and that " things will change. " None of those things have happened. That makes him a bad President.

At 5/11/12 02:54 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: Obama promised us jobs, health care, and that " things will change. " None of those things have happened. That makes him a bad President.

How easy do you think it is to change the economy?

At 5/11/12 02:34 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Work for 60 hours a week for $10 a week at best. You willing to do that? Well? Are you? (crickets)

Indian engineering graduates earn more than a dollar and 43 cents a day, I believe you are referring to unskilled laborers and if American graduates can't compete with an Indian unskilled laborer 8000 miles away then our education system must be pretty bad. In fact considering all the drama and liberal arts students I wouldn't be suprised if many American graduates were about as productive as an unskilled laborer 8000 miles away, but anyway...

So what if a business moves abroad for the cheap labor? The purpose of the government is not to ensure the territory it controls has the highest GDP, it is to serve the upstanding citizens who have placed their trust in it, if shareholders make more money moving abroad then that's a good thing and the economy benefits as a whole due to competitive advantage, the few luddites temporarily inconvenienced by these changes will just have to take one for the team. The Indians are like us anyway, as their economy develops they will start unionizing and demanding welfare cheques as well, furthermore allowing Americans to work for less than minimum wage doesn't necessarily mean we have to cut them off welfare, we could just keep paying them welfare and let them go pick oranges to supplement their income. So all in all cheap labor isn't the issue here, everyone ultimately benefits when businesses are free to follow market forces unfettered by government intervention.

The US is hemorrhaging business (and jobs) to industries and services in emerging markets primarily because we are increasingly reliant on soviet style state planning and Keynesian bubble and bust debtconomics while the rest of the world embraces free markets. This is the root of the problem and we need to bring back Reaganomics to solve it.