• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

"The private sector is doing fine."

BenBurch said:
The people who were good at this became discouraged during the Bush years, and many retired or went into other fields.
Click to expand...

Ben, can you hazard a guess as to why those folks aren't coming back, the ones who went into different fields?

With such a severe skilled labor shortage, they should be able to command quite a premium to return.

Seems like a no-brainer.
 
shuize said:
It's not his silly "the private sector is doing fine" statement, its the two statements taken together.

Logically, I don't understand how one can believe "the private sector is doing fine" and at the same time believe it "absolutely clear the economy is not doing fine" unless one somehow thinks the private sector is not really part of the "economy" or not a big enough part of the "economy" to matter.
Click to expand...

But again, "the private sector" is not equivalent to "the economy". It doesn't follow that one must think the private sector doesn't matter to the economy.

There is nothing contradictory in observing that the private sector is doing fine but the economy is not.

Obama went on to point out that the private sector has been adding jobs at a faster rate in this recovery than in the previous recovery. The problem is that the dramatic shrinking of government spending (largely through loss of revenue) has resulted in massive layoffs in the public sector which is driving unemployment.

The "job creators" have everything they need, but the economy is still in bad shape (mostly sluggish growth and high unemployment--inflation isn't a big issue, at least not yet).

This, I suspect, was the point Obama should have made clear: the private sector has what it needs to create jobs, and it has been doing so. The job creators have plenty of cash. The only thing that might be holding them back is uncertainty (generally, uncertainty about a bunch of government issues, such as running into the debt ceiling again and how we'll deal with the impending automatic tax increases and spending cuts that will kick in if we don't reach a fairly long-term compromise that establishes some semblance of long term stability or at least predictability).
 
Caper said:
Really? What ridiculous things have you cooked up in your head will come to pass if Romney is elected?
Click to expand...
I don't believe the sky will fall. I voted for Bush twice and we survived that. We can survive Romney. Of course. But Bush caused the death of tens of thousands of innocent people based on lies. He significantly changed the Supreme Court. It's not dire but then it's not inconsequential. You are painting a dichotomy where either everything is critical or everything is just fine. It's nonsense of course and you know it, otherwise, you wouldn't even be here in the politics forum if there were no significant consequences to politics. If it were all trivial then not many would give a damn. But you are here and "don't worry everything will be okay" is fatuous.
 
Wangler said:
Ben, can you hazard a guess as to why those folks aren't coming back, the ones who went into different fields?

With such a severe skilled labor shortage, they should be able to command quite a premium to return.

Seems like a no-brainer.
Click to expand...

Well, many have retired; These skills were already unfashionable in the 90s, not being where the big money was, and many people put out of work in the first half of Bush the Lesser's reign simply retired. Others found careers doing other things, and would be going back to something they haven't done in a decade and which is a very stressful occupation at the best of times.

I went back to engineering because I am sick enough to actually like it.
 
RandFan said:
He has a very real chance if he is elected to change the Supreme Court. I would say it is probable.
Click to expand...

If Bush is the antichrist do you have a problem with who he sent to the Supreme court?
 
Caper said:
If Bush is the antichrist do you have a problem with who he sent to the Supreme court?
Click to expand...
The question is nonsensical. Whatever "Bush" is, is entirely irrelevant to whether or not I have a problem with who he sent to the Supreme Court. Further, I made it clear what I think of those with whom he sent. So the question doesn't follow from the premise and I've answered the question.

Are you interested in a meaningful discussion or is this some kind of game simply to stroke your ego? I'm not really interested in that.
 
Caper said:
If Bush is the antichrist do you have a problem with who he sent to the Supreme court?
Click to expand...

Did you see no problem with Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers?

The others were decent enough nominees who predictably share much of Bush's political ideology. But that's exactly why consideration of these nominations should figure into our voting decisions.

ETA: How did we get here from a discussion of the economy?
 
Ziggurat said:
BTW, some more statistics: government workers have the lowest unemployment rate (just 4.2% in March) of any sector of the economy.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t14.htm
Click to expand...


Holy **** ! 4.2%!? No wonder Obama is more worried about those poor folks in the public sector!

Black youth unemployment will obviously have to wait. After all, they're mostly in the private sector and as we know, it's doing just fine.

Edited by LashL: 
Edited to properly mask profanity as per Rule 10.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ziggurat said:
BTW, some more statistics: government workers have the lowest unemployment rate (just 4.2% in March) of any sector of the economy.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t14.htm
Click to expand...

shuize said:
Holy ****! 4.2%!? No wonder Obama is more worried about those poor folks in the public sector!

Black youth unemployment will obviously have to wait. After all, they're mostly in the private sector and as we know, it's doing just fine.
Click to expand...

applecorped said:
Yes, but it should be 0%.;)
Click to expand...
That seems a good spanking on Obama. Interesting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ravdin said:
My favorite proposal to date is for the US Treasury to issue $852 quadrillion in bonds to build the Death Star. If we want to create 100% employment, why not do it in style?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/modest-proposal-boost-us-gdp-852-quadrillion-build-imperial-death-star
Click to expand...
See, now this I like. The project would take so long to implement and complete that we would all likely live in opulence and peace for a hundred years at least. Why the hell wouldn't we do this? I'm looking at you GOP.
 
RandFan said:
The question is nonsensical. Whatever "Bush" is, is entirely irrelevant to whether or not I have a problem with who he sent to the Supreme Court. Further, I made it clear what I think of those with whom he sent. So the question doesn't follow from the premise and I've answered the question.

Are you interested in a meaningful discussion or is this some kind of game simply to stroke your ego? I'm not really interested in that.
Click to expand...

Take it easy.... I meant it like this. You are scared of Romney (more specifically how he will shape the your countries supreme court). You obviously don't like George Bush and wish you received your liberal awakening 10 years earlier....... I see Bush made 2 appointments to the Supreme court. I couldn't name them off hand so I looked them up. They seem fairly centrist to me. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm sure you could enlighten me as to why you dislike Bush's choices.... or maybe you don't mind them at all.... that's why I asked.

My main point being is.... If Bush's choices are fairly centrist (which you may or may not agree with)... I can't expect Romney's to be that much further to the right.
 
Caper said:
My main point being is.... If Bush's choices are fairly centrist (which you may or may not agree with)... I can't expect Romney's to be that much further to the right.
Click to expand...

Bush's choices were decidedly not centrist.

At any rate, I'm not sure the approach of asking how bad could things be if one candidate is elected is the way to approach an election.

As far as economic ideology goes, the two candidates we're likely to be choosing between are pretty far apart. One thinks the solution is to let the free market fix things (by cutting taxes on the "job creators" and further deregulating most industries--pretty much the policies we've had in place already), and the other is a candidate who probably believes in liberal Keynsian economics, but has expressed support for compromise positions (Simpson-Bowles and such) that accept a budget with more spending cuts than tax increases.
 
Caper said:
Take it easy.... I meant it like this. You are scared of Romney (more specifically how he will shape the your countries supreme court). You obviously don't like George Bush and wish you received your liberal awakening 10 years earlier....... I see Bush made 2 appointments to the Supreme court. I couldn't name them off hand so I looked them up. They seem fairly centrist to me. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm sure you could enlighten me as to why you dislike Bush's choices.... or maybe you don't mind them at all.... that's why I asked.

My main point being is.... If Bush's choices are fairly centrist (which you may or may not agree with)... I can't expect Romney's to be that much further to the right.
Click to expand...
First off, I would really appreciate it if you didn't make assumptions about my ideological views. Next, please don't tell me to take it easy when you are not being clear. I'm not agitated or upset so there is nothing for me to "take easy". Just be clear.

Next, I'm not exactly sure where you get the idea that either are centrist. The court has shifted quite dramatically and conservatives know this which is why they have produced an unbelievable number of bills intended to challenge Roe v Wade and gay rights.

It's really not at all conducive to a discussion to simply assert that everyone is in the middle. Bush, Romney, the Supreme Court and then tell us to chill out. I find it difficult to take you seriously. No, Bush wasn't a centrist. I don't honestly know how Romney will govern, he swears he is severely conservative, but the Tea Party and the 2010 elections have made it quite clear that the far right is in charge of the party now. Even Bohner has little influence or leadership. He must kow tow to Norquist and Limbaugh and fight tooth and nail against every past GOP position that Obama adopts to ensure the country fails so Obma will fail. Now, to avoid you making any false equivalency or assumption about my views of the Democrats, I don't thin they are innocent either but I don't think there is any comparison between the two.

So, tell me, what exactly makes Alito or Roberts centrists?

Finally, do us both a favor, stop with the presumptions that it's obvious that everything is hunkey dorey and everyone is in the middle. If that is your opinion you are entitled to it but there is no basis for anyone else to agree. The sky isn't falling. We will all survive. But that doesn't mean that some bad stuff isn't going to happen to if Romney is elected. So stop with the silly dichotomy of either everything is okay or the apocalypse, it's getting old. If you want to propagate that meme okay but at least defend it, make an argument, justify it, stop simply arguing by assertion.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Lots of conservatives did. That's why her nomination tanked so fast, without even a real battle: Bush's base didn't support her.
Click to expand...
Continuing this odd derail, Sotomayor was not imo a top tier candidate either, yet Republicans on the Judiciary Committee rolled over like whipped dogs instead of going into difficult questions for her.

Should she recuse herself from ACA deliberations (she was a white house connected attorney giving legal opinions on it) or join in a 6-3 unconstitutional decision I'll apologise for this comment.

I fear another Obama appointment unless the senate grows some balls to challenge.

On topic, no, the private economy is not doing fine, nor is the economy at less than 2%/yr GDP growth. It may work as a sop to unionistas; I hope not.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom