Politics Obama - Actually doing a good job?

I responded to your question. Here is the opening sentence in one of the articles cited:

???? that says nothing, and could mean whatever the reader wants it to mean - we deserve better than this type of bs.

the average rate between 2009 and 2012, was unacceptable. If we look at the next category 20 to 100, I expect the number is negative depending on the time period.

I see your pattern, and I appreciate optimism. At the risk of being overly macabre even in the throws of death there can be momentary instances of positive indicators. I suggest a broader look at the indicators and ask on a short-term basis has any fundamental changes occurred that would reverse a long-term trend. If you see some, what are they?

What business needs most is some clarity. Obama in particular is a master at communicating while saying nothing confusing those who need more than the hopey/changey rhetoric. did you hear the Fed Chair testify in front of Congress last week? His outlook was not positive, and he is running out of options to help stimulate economic activity - he is even saying we need clarity from Washington. I am not sure if you are arguing with me because that is what you do, or arguing the circumstance the economy is in.

Yes, I don't have the time to walk through A to Z here, I agree here I often simply jump from A to Z. I write, here, in broad general terms. But often I find there is not agreement on generally accepted underlying premises, i.e. job growth is lacking...from that I point to small business and the response is that the premise is incorrect. do you actually believe job growth is healthy in the US economy??? I don't believe you do.

 

Ace....I actually agree with you on the need to change direction from pre-2000 and IMO, Obama has not gone far enough.

What is needed is more investment in emerging technologies (resulting in more small business start ups) and less tax relief for big oil making record profits, more investment in infrastructure (creating thousands of small business jobs but blocked by Republicans), more investment in government basic R&D, more investment in job retraining...

And finally, supply side economics is not a new direction, it is a failed policy that would certainly result in adding $trillions to the country's long-term debt as had resulted from both the Reagan and Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest.

 

Hard to imagine we look at the same chart. I see historic lows. I see a relative flat trend in sharp decline from 2005. In Wall St. terms, some might call this (no longer PC) a dead cat bounce.

 

The historic low in Jan 2009 following Bush policies and trending upwards from 80 to 90+ percent, albeit with blips, since Obama took office.

 

Not that long ago many of my right leaning friends were telling me how Obama was toast because gas prices were through the roof under him and people will vote their wallets.



Now suddenly, for some odd reason, gas prices have nothing to do with who's POTUS.

My conclusion is you can not debate with people who keep changing the rules mid debate.

 

Or SpaceEx, Orbital, Virgin Galactic... Even the LunarX prize and getting more teens/college kids involved in Space science would be good.

But NASA does need to shed the Earth monitoring stuff. I like what they have done, and they are doing a good job, but NOAA, NGA, and the EPA really should be doing that. NASA needs to be focused on what is going on outside of low-Earth orbit. Working on some experiments with private companies to improve rocket launches or find alternatives (space elevator). Working on advanced light speed type space engines. And building giant telescopes in space or on the far side of the Moon. The Space Station is good, but needs to evolve. It should be a start of a space outpost. Plus they should boost it out into space when it is done, not crash it back to Earth.

I agree with the rest of your post.

 

It was over $100/gram in the 80s.

 

I'm sorry, since we're quoting the BLS...
Go Here... Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Change that top left drop down from 2002, back to 1989.
Now, compare these (familiar) phases:
1989-1993,
1993-2001,
2001-2009
2009-Now...

Also note the f(sine)...
You can take that back to 1948, and, aside from the recent spike we're recovering from... new, obtuse, non-incumbent policies aside, and cronyism that leads to necessary correction (equalization)...

Would you:
1.) Take a chance on a non-incumbent who's not doing too well in polls against the incubmant in a recovering economy, or,
2.) Vote the party line & cite pre-2000 levels of decreasing unemployment under a democratic regime.... voting a republican into the presidency (after looking at that graph)...

If Obama is defeated, considering that Romney is BIG BUSINESS oriented, we WILL NOT see that 6+ mil increase in jobs... we will not see the unemployment spike down... the odds are that it will spike UP again, or, continue downward at a steady pace for a while, and end-up spiking again. Noted previously... stagnation and large businesses doing hiring...

What the hell is "normal" anyway... things are changing so fast... we don't see 30-year political cycles anymore... not like we once did. You can "normalize" to pre-2000 levels, during which time a Democrat was mostly responsible... Romney's a republican, and a fiddler for big business... a parrot, a mouthpiece, and a puppet.
--- merged: Jun 27, 2012 at 4:22 AM ---

What's the "statistician's credo"?
...
You know, non-actuarial statisticians doing "research" for partisan institutes that aren't funded by people with political motivations...

"How you influence people is all in how you look at and interpret the numbers."

Any basic college-level statistics course starts out with the instructor stating basic facts like this.... that you can use statistics and interpret them, and data, any number of different ways, finding whatever-odd-trend to influence your audience.

This is the problem with "macro" and over-simplified "specification" ... aside from modern factors like any idiot can go out to the internet and find supporting evidence for their arguments from a variety of sources...

Here's my proof that Republicans should win the 2012 Election...

Proof of Creationism?​

​

I just found this article out on the internet, and it's enough proof and support for me to believe in the Real Nessie For America!!! (Go Nessie! Write-In Nessie!)​

​

​

 

The trends that have resulted from policy impacting small business relative to big business have been in place for a few decades - and has been significantly better or worse depending on the State. During the Bush administration for a period after the 2001 recession many people talked about a "jobless recovery", some of the key issues were coming to a boil and then ignored due to the normalization of economic growth - the problem did not go away. In summary what we have had is strong advocacy for big business, labor, poor, and minority groups and little or no advocacy for small and medium business. Cumulative government actions has been increasingly burdensome to small business.

The concern today is that we know what the problem is. The problem is clear. I argue something needs to be done, now. Comparisons to Bush or other past Presidents is of no value.
--- merged: Jun 27, 2012 at 3:38 PM ---

Perhaps there are two ways to look at this, the way you present.

Or, perhaps we are in a environment of slow or virtually no economic growth and that prices are actually reflecting demand.

In this circumstance we have to look at capacity. If we are below capacity and prices reflect normal market forces - that is good and we would see prices based on supply and demand. However if we go into a circumstance where demand exceeds capacity, and prices reflect scarcity - that is bad and we would see prices based an abnormal market.

If we have a window of opportunity to address the capacity issue, but don't - we will see prices spike up pretty fast when demand goes back to normal with normal growth. We need a long-term outlook. We need to minimize uncertainty. If I had a small business with a fleet of vehicles that used gas or diesel, I hold capital for expected price increases - I do this before hiring more people or investing in growth. If a new truck, driver, new route is profitable at current prices, but won't be if prices spike in 6/12/18 months - I hold off. Washington needs to give us an energy policy, create conditions of stability in the oil and gas markets.
--- merged: Jun 27, 2012 at 3:44 PM ---

People will adapt when prices are relatively stable. If gas is $1.61 or $6.61 and relatively stabilized businesses and individuals will make rational decisions based on the conditions. At $6.61 we would see big trends towards fuel efficiency, at $1.61 we would see big trends towards big SUV's/Trucks/driving more/etc. When we go from about $2 to $4 to $2...you get confusion in the market - more uncertainty!
--- merged: Jun 27, 2012 at 3:52 PM ---

That is why I do my own work.

I alluded to a problem in statistics presented in a citation where the author pointed out that there was improved growth in employment in the sector of employers who employ fewer than 20 people. If you look at the next category those who employ 20-100, and that number goes down. One reason could be because firms who were once in the 20-100 category go down to the fewer than 20 category. I find that kinda stuff very creative.

 

Congratulations! You've found yet another way to move the goal post. Bravo.
--- merged: Jun 27, 2012 at 5:55 PM ---

You know it's only like $25 a gram here. Wonder if anyone has figured out they can sell it for more up north?

 

Many would suggest that the greatest cause of Ace's "more uncertainty" being responsible for the slow economic growth has nothing to do with gas prices, but rather the worst Congressional gridlock in recent history. Both sides are to blame, but again, most lay it more at the hands of the Republicans and their unwillingness to compromise, particularly the Tea Party members.

From two well respected Congressional scholars (left and right):

 

I wish I had that ability - I am just being real. If you prefer an echo chamber it is best to ignore my posts.
--- merged: Jun 27, 2012 at 7:08 PM ---

I don't prefer centralized control, I prefer free markets. Stable pricing can be achieved in either type of system. I know some people are perfectly happy living under centralized control systems, I wouldn't.

There should not be any subsidies in my opinion. If a commodity is rare and/or in high demand prices should reflect that and if a commodity is abundant or in low demand prices should reflect that. When prices do not or can not reflect real costs to society, tax policy should make up the difference. If consumers pay the true real cost, efficient decisions are made in the market.

There have been occasions in human history where a few have exploited natural resource over a short period of time flooding the market while making a fast profit. In these instances government involvement was needed so that market prices actually reflected the destructive costs to the environment. Deforestation, strip mining, whaling, etc, are a few things that come to mind. I am not anti-government or anti-tax. I just don't want government trying to pick winners and losers or trying to manipulate market behavior.
--- merged: Jun 27, 2012 at 7:26 PM ---

When people actually read what I write they find that I often refer to "Washington" (as in D.C., our Federal government). When I have issue with Obama, it is stated clearly. When I write about trends I am not being partisan. When I have had issue with Bush, I say so. When I have issue with Republicans, I say so. I have often stated that Bush and Republican spent out of control. They gave us tax cuts, but they did not reduce spending. Their failures gave birth to the Tea Party - and there is still an internal struggle for the soul of the party - but Bush is not in office. Obama is President and his party controls the Senate. He needs to lead to get his agenda passed. Others in the past could do it.

I have also made it clear that I do not like Obama and in particular his style of leadership and communication. I have a bias against people like Obama who I consider a pseudo-intellectual. However, I do separate my dislike and bias from my views on his policy behaviors.

Final comment, you seem to think I make this "uncertainty" issue up, you seem to think I make up the issues facing small business - I assure you that I don't. I was in Washington a few weeks ago (along with about 300,000 Girl Scouts on the Mall one weekend) and as I traveled around the D.C. area, I can tell you that it seemed like a different world, boom town, with all the construction and business activity. When a person travels outside of D.C. and a few other metropolitan hot spots - things are very different. It was funny watching the Chicago coverage of the recent G8, where Chicago put on a real show, while hiding the real city. Some folks really need to get out more - talk to people outside of the "rope-line" (thinking of a recent Obama ad where he speaks about all the folks he talks to on "the rope line" - give me a break!)

 

All that is great, Ace, but has nothing to do with the what I posted.

When the Republican party has moved so far right in the last few election cycles with many campaigning on positions of "no compromise" on anything, then you create uncertainty, not to mention an utter disregard for a willingness to work together in the best interest of the country even if means not getting your way all the time.

 

But if I ignore your posts I'm left with nothing to humor me. Plus I have to watch more Fox News to get the day right wing talking points and I'm seriously trying to cut back on TV this summer.

 

Exit stage closest...

Anybody else get that same feeling when someone's arguing not valid information just to try and maintain a single-track standpoint

After having said ...

When the long-term, MACRO numbers that others are citing, speak WORLDS compared to (micro) anthills...

I find your stuff very creative... in the sense of "creative accounting." Especially circumvention of others' arguments, and complete disregard w/ constant argumentation.

I notice you threw in the "past comparisons"... despite what I'd posted... all the while saying that if Obama is defeated (while the economy is recovering), that we'll see a spike of 6+ million jobs... in the small-business sector, when the Cronies who pull the puppet-strings of GOP are big-business, as was Bain Capital.

What are your qualifications to interpret numbers in any way possible to argue with others? Is it a personality thing? Is it a political thing?

Ace... let us see if you can rationalize your thoughts not just with argumentation to support your own standpoint, but actually address these thoughts in an objective manner.

/Sorry. I know this is asking a lot from what I've seen from you already... but... it's really just that irritating for me. I can read Tully & Bakara, because they present interesting things. Anybody presenting a lot of arguments against valid data sources, citing their own analysis, usually falls under this scrutiny when things don't add-up -- justify your standpoint and numbers. If I were running Bain Capital, and you came to me w/ this... you'd be out the door for someone willing to open-up their books. (I have to force myself to read through your stuff that Bakara and Tully are responding to -- at least they're entertaining!)
--- merged: Jun 27, 2012 at 10:13 PM ---

I'm rubber, and you're glue, and whatever bounces off me, sticks to you...
But it really just keeps bouncing back and forth.

Indian & Chinese labor is abundant in quantity and a commodity. Wait, why should "tax policy" make-up the difference... Billionaires reflect the "real cost to society." And, prices set are reflective of what people are willing to pay... thus... there *should never be any need* for any extraneous "tax policy"... they're in place as a control structure... who'd've thunk....

Is it not the Tea Party that's completely resistant to any compromise...
Unlike the original Tea Party, which was staged after failure to compromise, time & again, sending the US's brightest minds abroad to talk w/ the French, Italians, Spanish, and English to try and reason with Britain. So they call themselves the Tea Party, but there's no compromise, and, thus, nothing gets done. Let's keep in mind that When Obama took office, Both houses of congress were Democrat lead... now you have a bunch of petty, younger, opinionated republicans infesting the House who're just a bunch of resistant little piss-ants, like teenagers bucking their parents wisdom.

Obama's closer to Ted Kennedy in terms of if tact and approach to getting things done, and any current Republican not sitting near the center of the aisle. It's not him (Obama) being resistant. It's a bunch of Republican Teenagers saying "I'm going to smoke cigarettes whether or not it's bad for me," and turning their backs just because they're not happy with, in the computer world, what you call "resultant set of policy." Your premise is outrageous... he'll work with people, he's not drawing lines in the sand. But he is standing up for at least some of what he believes in, rather than rolling-over and playing puppet-mouthpiece, and ignoring things.

Policy behaviors? Kinda like not being a typical Dem when it comes to Armed Forces and protecting the nation (taking up the sword Bush started a swath with)...
Yeah... nobody indirect likes those who are direct... or at least those who know how to speak up, rather than being a puppet or mouthpiece for others and saying what others want to hear. I, for one, and one that appreciates people who aren't mouthpieces or pawns to their Vice President or Daddy's controlling nature. It shows adulthood and maturity not to be threatened or intimidated by bully tactics, and also extremely high intelligence to continue getting the job done while bucking this aspect of our political spectrum that's gaining momentum. So, your assertion that we'll see a 6-million job increase if Obama loses may come true (in your wildest wet dreams)... but what we'll have is a known bully for a president, with big-business mouthpieces behind him, squatting on the little guy & small businesses. When was Romney ever in small business, anyway? Anyone???