[dorciepatrick]

Right direction?

Are we continuing to head in the right direction? There is certainly a looooong way to go to get back to where we were, but is the US economy turning a corner?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...est=latestnews

[wisdome]

Originally Posted by dorciepatrick

Are we continuing to head in the right direction? There is certainly a looooong way to go to get back to where we were, but is the US economy turning a corner?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...est=latestnews

To me it is great news! Don't care how it is done and by who. What matters is their are some happy folks out there at this time and that is what matters.

[SBFAMILY]

The problem with this number is it is not accurate. Read today's USA today on SSI and 10.7 Million now on SSI increase by 20%!. Now if you throw in all those that gave up looking for a job that are now taking SS at 62, this number is not even close. They don't count those above. At this rate this number is unsustainable and will exhaust reserves by 2018. Yet no one will address it. Lawyers are fighting any changes because they make a living on SSI and this is a boom for them. Then we have the Europe factor. 50% chance of a mild recession in 2012, 40% a major recession in 2012 and only a 10% no recession in 2012. This out of today's 2012 outlook from Merrill Lynch. Don't want to sound gloom and doom, but volatility in 2012 is expected. Most forecasts are showing 2014, before we really take a bite out of unemployment .

[o.a.b.]

Ohio could drop its rate by hiring 100,000 smoke police. State troopers will now find a new use for smoke detectors.Mad Mothers who smoke,take note.Meanwhile,the texting ban has been tabled.It's imperative that business [ through texting ] on the road be supported.A last second business deal is a higher priority than second hand smoke.Either way,the seconds are ticking away.....on second thought,let's just get some senators that think past second grade.Moronic imbeciles that need to get a life !

[Lancer '65]

When I hear that unemployment is down for the fifth consecutive month, I have cause for optimism. 8.3 % unemployment is getting relatively close to a high but not out of this world high rate. I was surprised that Fox News would report this as they did until I got to about the second sentence and then I felt better. Fox was still being Fox. I think that it will get harder and harder for the conservatives to sell the gloom and doom outlook if these numbers continue to lower. Question.....How many staunch conservatives are on their knees praying for continued good news regarding our shrinking unemployment rate. I don't think we are out of the woods by a long shot but news like this is a welcome change from six months ago. Can't we be allowed to feel good about anything that suggests that perhaps the light is starting to shine a little bit brighter at the end of the tunnel?....and just for the heck of it, let's say that the projection of 2014 as the year when a real lowering of unemployment will happen is true . If it's going to be 2014, why is it so important to the conservatives to defeat Obama at all costs? Many will credit Obama with the economic recovery if the numbers continue to lower. Do you suppose that could be why the conservatives want him to lose? Anyway, I hope that one of your friends is back to work this week, or perhaps it's you that is back to work. Great! It's a beginning. Hope is addicting.

[Homer Falcon]

Originally Posted by Lancer '65

When I hear that unemployment is down for the fifth consecutive month, I have cause for optimism. 8.3 % unemployment is getting relatively close to a high but not out of this world high rate. I was surprised that Fox News would report this as they did until I got to about the second sentence and then I felt better. Fox was still being Fox. I think that it will get harder and harder for the conservatives to sell the gloom and doom outlook if these numbers continue to lower. Question.....How many staunch conservatives are on their knees praying for continued good news regarding our shrinking unemployment rate. I don't think we are out of the woods by a long shot but news like this is a welcome change from six months ago. Can't we be allowed to feel good about anything that suggests that perhaps the light is starting to shine a little bit brighter at the end of the tunnel?....and just for the heck of it, let's say that the projection of 2014 as the year when a real lowering of unemployment will happen is true . If it's going to be 2014, why is it so important to the conservatives to defeat Obama at all costs? Many will credit Obama with the economic recovery if the numbers continue to lower. Do you suppose that could be why the conservatives want him to lose? Anyway, I hope that one of your friends is back to work this week, or perhaps it's you that is back to work. Great! It's a beginning. Hope is addicting.

What you fail to realize is that a fiscal conservative would have had this number to 6% in the same given time frame! (IMHO)

What you further fail to realize is that you can't make folks invest in what BO is selling. Of course there's tons of money on the sidelines...with the hope that this guy goes down. Why lay it out there if our leader feels he knows better how to use it if he can only wrestle it away? What's the incentive to come off it with a growing sentiment that it needs to be distibuted? There's little hope of any change with the social progressive crowd pulling the strings.

[o.a.b.]

Originally Posted by Homer Falcon

What you fail to realize is that a fiscal conservative would have had this number to 6% in the same given time frame! (IMHO)

What you further fail to realize is that you can't make folks invest in what BO is selling. Of course there's tons of money on the sidelines...with the hope that this guy goes down. Why lay it out there if our leader feels he knows better how to use it if he can only wrestle it away? What's the incentive to come off it with a growing sentiment that it needs to be distibuted? There's little hope of any change with the social progressive crowd pulling the strings.

That's fine and great---believe what you will but their lack of faith in Obama's agenda does not entitle them to keep posing the question- " Where are the Jobs ? " You either believe government has a defined role in reviving an ailing economy and get on board OR you withhold your money AND your opinion.Too many cheap potshots have been fired at our president [ fueled by those loving animosity ]--tea partiers,if you will.I'm not downgrading them but they should be just as critical of Republican policy,yet have failed to do so."Social progressives" is a general term that encompasses economic discipline as much as the other way around.The real problem that faces this nation is a lack of long term investment at EVERY level--people cashing in 401K's,employers pitting overseas labor against their own.....on and on.The best solution is for the "smaller government" advocates within government to set an example.But they haven't,they won't and never will.Smaller government is a mere rallying cry at election time---same as it ever was.

[jajfitz]

The sad part is that people (and most of the press) will swallow the idea that it was Obamas' policies that caused this. Think of it this way. A patient goes to the doctor with an annoying but non fatal cold. (Caused by Pelosi and Reid but that is another story) The doc prescribes medicine and the patient gets sicker and sicker and things look bad. Then THREE YEARS later the patient starts to feel better. The doctor has no business taking credit. There are words for doctors like that. As a matter of fact the GOP should run with the idea that it was them blocking any new medication from being inflicted on people that allow the patient to get better.

[Lancer '65]

I think there are two types of President (speaking very generally.). There are those who take control of a situation and attempt to initiate change and improvement through policy changes. Presidents who do that incur the opposition of those who had been in power before. Then there are those who "caretake" and don't rock the boat and attempt to "get along" with their detractors and tend to act more like ceremonial Presidents. I think that much of the opposition Obama has faced in the last couple of years comes from those who are concerned that if he succeeds by using the programs and policies that he has become much more aggressive about, that it wiill spell another term in the White House and since it is normal for the business cycle to ebb and flow, it is conceivable that the President, if he wins another term, will be given a certain amount of the credit for instituting the policy changes that in their eyes have been responsible for the recovery. This, in turn, will contribute to a national surge in the popularity of the Democrats and the Republicans will be on the outside looking in. Thus, it has been repeatedly stated and continues to be mentioned on a daily basis that the primary goal of this Republican campaign agenda is to defeat Barack Obama and everything else has taken a back seat in their eyes. I think it comes down to a very simple point. The one who ends up with the most toys wins and if the Democrats win, the toys stay in the Democratic closet and with that, the power to appoint people to important positions in the government, the power to "gerrymander" voting districts so that Democratic candidates receive the advantages of easier elections, etc etc etc. It unfortunately always comes down to this. The last people considered are those who our government is supposed to represent. That would be you and I, and it really doesn't matter which party is "out" and which party is "in".

I still honestly feel that President Obama is attempting to solve the economic problems we face and I applaud him for having what appears to be the courage of his convictions at this point. Also, it does appear that things are improving. A while ago I think that his reticence to act allowed the Republicans a point of attack. Now, with his more aggressive actions, and the economic numbers that are starting to appear, the Republicans are worried about what the future (immediate) holds for them. if I were still an activist Republican, I would be also.

[Homer Falcon]

Originally Posted by o.a.b.

That's fine and great---believe what you will but their lack of faith in Obama's agenda does not entitle them to keep posing the question- " Where are the Jobs ? " You either believe government has a defined role in reviving an ailing economy and get on board OR you withhold your money AND your opinion.Too many cheap potshots have been fired at our president [ fueled by those loving animosity ]--tea partiers,if you will.I'm not downgrading them but they should be just as critical of Republican policy,yet have failed to do so."Social progressives" is a general term that encompasses economic discipline as much as the other way around.The real problem that faces this nation is a lack of long term investment at EVERY level--people cashing in 401K's,employers pitting overseas labor against their own.....on and on.The best solution is for the "smaller government" advocates within government to set an example.But they haven't,they won't and never will.Smaller government is a mere rallying cry at election time---same as it ever was.

Can't quite go with much of this. I vote. And, by virtue of that fact will not withhold my opinion. I further will not invest in a failing stategy. You might want to check on the differences between social progressives and social conservatives. I don't see either as 'general' terms. In fact, I see them as a more accurate description of one's political leanings than the general usage of republican or democrat.

[dorciepatrick]

Originally Posted by jajfitz

The sad part is that people (and most of the press) will swallow the idea that it was Obamas' policies that caused this. Think of it this way. A patient goes to the doctor with an annoying but non fatal cold. (Caused by Pelosi and Reid but that is another story) The doc prescribes medicine and the patient gets sicker and sicker and things look bad. Then THREE YEARS later the patient starts to feel better. The doctor has no business taking credit. There are words for doctors like that. As a matter of fact the GOP should run with the idea that it was them blocking any new medication from being inflicted on people that allow the patient to get better.

I agree that people will swallow the idea that President Obama's policies caused this. Normally, if a President takes office when the US economy is losing jobs at a rate of 700,00 jobs/month......and now the economy has shown an increase in jobs for 16 months in a row.......people tend to give the president credit for that.

http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2012...reation-stuff/

Is the improvement due to his policies? I'm not enough of an economic expert to say one way or the other.
If the GOP wants to run on a slogan of "Things are better only because we blocked some things!", then so be it.

[docthehun]

"We have found the enemy and the enemy is us." Playing the blame game seems to me to be a waste of time and energy. I haven't engaged in any Presidental bashing and I don't intend to. I voted for John McCain because I felt the President lacked sufficient experience, particularily in the world of business. My opinion in that arena, hasn't changed.

As for the notion of a smaller government, which I hear on a local level as well, is a great idea. It's also likely to be a disaster. Despite the uproar over the concept of Socialism, we've become a nation of addicts. My party touts the business sector as the key to job creation. That's mostly true. On the other hand, "Big Brother" is the best customer. Think not? The Pentagon is the nation's largest employer and they buy a lot of product.

If you take it down to the state and local governments, it has the same financial impact. Big government is big business. There's hardly a business in America that doesn't benefit, including small businesses. So if you decide reducing the military budget maybe deserves more consideration, you're left with two items for a smaller government, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. The latter item is killing not only the federal budget, but many state budgets as well. If you really want a smaller system, I propose to return to each American their current paid in balances for both SS and Medicare. Of course, older Americans would in many cases actually owe the Fed money. For the rest of us, we'd all have to become pretty astute investors in cover our retirement costs, including health care. Does that sound like something the American public would stomach? It doesn't to me.

So I'd ask, just what the version of a smaller government would look like.

[Lancer '65]

Interesting question, doc.

[dorciepatrick]

doc,
Do you realize that you're one of those "squishy moderates" that Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and the like love to disparage?
I've been a Democrat all of my adult life -- Social liberal/fiscal conservative. I supported Paul Tsongas (pro-business Democrat) over Bill Clinton in 1992. Looking back, I think we made a mistake in not nominating Hillary in 2008, even though I voted for Barack in the primary.
In 1994, I voted for more Republicans than Democrats.
All that being said, today's Republican party scares the heck out of me. Just watching the debates -- people cheering for someone to die because of no health insurance, for example.
I, like I think millions of Democrats, believe in the principle of personal responsibility. I, like I think millions of Democrats, believe in able-bodied people working if they are able to rather than sucking off the taxpayers' money.
However, I also believe that those that need government assistance should have it, and yes, I am happy to pay taxes to help them.
I think that most Democrats are like me. I also think that most of today's Republicans are not interested in the welfare of those who cannot help themselves -- and that's not the America that I was taught about when I was in school.

[Homer Falcon]

Originally Posted by docthehun

So I'd ask, just what the version of a smaller government would look like.

Something closer to what our founders invisioned? A federal government that provided national defense, infrastructure, and civil order, and not much else. A federal government that wasn't in the education business, the car business, the banking business...one that didn't pick winners and losers and didn't view anything as too big to fail? One that didn't exploit our social contract for votes? A government that governs best by governing the least?

You are correct though. At this point in time a retreat would be chaos. We've forgotten what 'self-sufficient' means. Can we at least vote to stop the expansion?

[Homer Falcon]

Originally Posted by dorciepatrick

I also think that most of today's Republicans are not interested in the welfare of those who cannot help themselves -- and that's not the America that I was taught about when I was in school.

Conservatives are extremely charitable and compassionate. What they're not interested in is government charity. Conservatives like to donate, liberals prefer to re-distribute.

Yer gonna love Mitt! Check out his donations to charity as opposed to President Obama's. It ain't even close!

[dorciepatrick]

I would appreciate it if you would would respond to my post as it was expressed, as opposed to consistently taking particular statements out of context.

[o.a.b.]

Originally Posted by Homer Falcon

Conservatives are extremely charitable and compassionate. What they're not interested in is government charity. Conservatives like to donate, liberals prefer to re-distribute.

Yer gonna love Mitt! Check out his donations to charity as opposed to President Obama's. It ain't even close!

as a % of their net worth ? I'm not slamming Mitt nor promoting Obama,but when gauging charitable donations.....and if you want to defy that argument,then let's also look at the % of taxes paid on their respective net worth.I'm not trying to play the high and almighty,but a certain someone made it clear years ago that it isn't what you give but rather your ability to give.In other words money is like talent-if you aren't giving your best,you aren't really giving.

[wisdome]

The question on the table (which don't get me wrong...I'm very happy that numbers show a increase in jobs and opportunities) was this due to the Obama policies or due to the Repo/Tea Party policies of the past year.

There are many that say that Obama's work has been obstructed by the Tea Party folks. If it is....how do we start seeing these results? On the other hand many have stated including myself that Obama had full control of congress for two years and his party still controls 2/3 of it today. Is that the reason (still a majority).

There also ones that say that the condition in our country was caused by Bush son with a controlled Demo Congress. On the other hand many say that the controlled Demo congress is to blame.

We can throw things around as much as we want. Our Federal Goverment is just flat out to big, with to much corruption and self absorbing power within it for any of us to say this or that. To me what matters is to this point is that from the jobs standpoint we are going in the right direction and maybe and say it again....maybe the combination of a Demo Prez or Repo Prez with a divided congress is what we need to ensure that things continue to march down the right path.

Now lets focus on bringing that budget back under control and do whatever it takes to get it done...rein in spending, EVERYBODY paying taxes and if a tax increase is requiered lets go for it!

[chs71]

The unemployment rate continues to improve as people give up and drop out of the workforce.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/implie...s-30-year-high