It's the economy, stupid: Obama vs. Romney has already begun

There's a part of me that says "the lesser of two evils is still evil." The realists in me knows the options are pretty cut and dry. I either vote for evil or completely insane evil. So I'll yet again simply be voting for evil.

 

i don't see the republicans as having anything to say. they've no ideas. their policies have been a disaster. yet, somehow, they persist.

it's interesting today that sarkozy got booted out in france in favor of hollande, a moderate socialist party guy who at least has the insight to figure out that neo-liberal ideas, including (centrally) this lunacy of austerity in a period of deep crisis rationalized by some imaginary notion of "fiscal responsibility" which only makes sense inside a neo-liberal framework is exactly the opposite of an approach that should be taken to begin dealing with this multi-variate fiasco that is contemporary capitalism. sarko was running a campaign very much like the republicans in the states, too---appealing to various neo-fascist friendly themes like xenophobia in an attempt to gain traction among the far right. and he was advocating a range of other positions that a us republican would find acceptable--and he's out.

it seems too much to hope that the american electorate will suddenly come to its senses in a massive way and recognize the degeneracy of neo-liberalism and the nonsense they are fed by the mainstream infotainment system and the ways in which they converge in precluding coherent discussion--not to mention the advancing of coherent policy ideas---that may address the present situation. what's sure is that the same nonsense that got us into this mess is the worst possible way to get out. and that romney is an entirely vile candidate---ask almost anyone from massachusetts.

 

it's good the krugman has a platform.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/07/opinion/krugman-those-revolting-europeans.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

 

Here is an idea - make it easier for employers to employ people, i.e. less costly, less risky. Step one would be get rid of Obamacare. Doing that one thing will result in a hiring spike. Picking the low hanging fruit first seem so obvious and so simple. If you think I am full of it or that I don't know what I am talking about, talk to some business owners - or better listen.

 

Here's a better idea. Put more money in the hands of the stagnant middle class and working poor consumers and pay for it by raising tax on the top 1/2 of 1 percent!

You know who I mean...protect the seniors who have saved (but would lose) $3-4 billion to-date on the cost of their prescriptions under Obamacare or the working family with a child with a pre-existing condition that are now required to be covered (but would lose) or a lifetime limit on out of pocket expenses to protect families from the number one cause of personal bankruptcy (but would lose).

Or how about investing in infrastructure, clean energy technology, basic R&D... (all of which are being sacrificed to protect the top wage earners and big oil companies from paying a few dollars more) so that we dont lose competitiveness in a global economy.

 

Here is the problem with your idea. We have to understand what comes first - the way to put more money in the hands of the stagnant middle class is for them to get well paying jobs from healthy and profitable businesses.

If you have a goose that lays golden eggs, you gotta take care of the goose. Everything that flows from that will be golden, if you know what I mean, if you don't I am talking about the eggs. We can hire someone for the other stuff that flows through a goose.

Liberal theories and talking points, make simple matters far too complicated.

 

Yet they contributed to the creation of 4 million private sector jobs in the last three years, not to mention again, the savings on health care costs for millions of Americans to-date.

As others have pointed out, the greatest job growth since WW II has come under Democratic presidents (and those liberal theories) and supply side/trickle down economics still doesnt work.

 

Pretty funny.

You do realize that just given population growth the US economy has to create jobs and that the jobs created since Obama was elected (key word as compared to sworn in - because there was a direct business response to his election in the context of employment), the US has not even come close to the number needed, and certainly not enough for strong economic growth.

 

?
So you want to take insurance away from millions of kids and people with preexisting conditions? How does that help

 

Really? Because the population grows steadily while job grow goes up and down-



Like most of your arguments on here your statement is pure fiction and or fantasy.

 

Rather than parroting talking points, why not look at real data? There has been no net job growth under Obama!

To see some trend data I start with total private sector employment in 1/05 and pick up 8/08, prior to Obama's election - raw numbers.

1/05 - 110,718,000
8/08 - 114,184,000
9/08 - 113,759,000
10/08 - 113,279,000
11/08 - 112,482,000
1/09 - 110,985,000
3/12 - 110,824,000

Under Bush private sector employment peaked at about 115.6 million in 1/08, the economy was in a recession in 2008, and the economy suffered job losses. Also in Bush's first term the recovery from the 2001 recession we saw slow job growth, until after his tax plan took effect. The biggest job declines occurred after Obama, with his anti-business rhetoric, was elected.

There are many places to get raw job numbers, I used this link because the data is available month to month and is easy to follow. The numbers in your chart are deceptive.

Total private: All Employees, Thousands, SA

On a side note, I wish you folks would stop with the Ace is "fantasy" or whatever b.s. Address the points. I have back up for my views. It always makes me laugh when I get the Ace is this or that, I provide back up, and never get a "yea you are right" response. It makes you folks seem petty.

 

Metaphorically speaking there is. Use your creative thought process, and see that in the US economy the golden goose is small business. In Canada the golden goose may be something different, perhaps oil/gas/natural resources industry. In China the golden goose may be their labor force. In Suadi Arabia the golden goose is oil and oil production. Etc, Etc, Etc.

And if you did not understand the point, which I doubt, it is in the best interests of each nation to protect and nurture those industries/sectors/resources that provide national wealth. it is simply dumb to do the opposite.
--- merged: May 8, 2012 at 12:04 PM ---

Yes. Job growth will slow or become negative during a recession, it is a part of the normal business cycle in the US. I illustrated the absurdity in the current Obama talking point regarding 4 million jobs created. The presentation is deceptive.
--- merged: May 8, 2012 at 12:09 PM ---

Obamacare is not a solution to our healthcare availability/affordability problem in this country. All it does it create problems and eventually bankrupt this country.