Obama should call Republicans' bluff: Embrace key GOP proposals -- and see if they play ball

[^_^ 5,021]

Twice, actually. I only have enough energy left for a sarcastic one-liner.

You need to go read my thread on Off Topic about Maxwell's Demon. You need more energy and I think that's just the ticket!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

clinton's policies did not create those jobs. the internet revolution created those jobs and just before clinton left office, a lot of those jobs were long gone. i remember very clearly nancy pelosi complaining about job when bush entered office and then the housing boom began so she shut up and started complaining about port security. internet boom and bust under clinton and housing boom and bust under bush/obama.

Ah, a bit of re-writing of history as well. Awesome. The unemployment rate was at 4.2% when W took office. So, if a lot of those jobs that were created while Slick Willie occupied the White House were long gone before he left office, how many would that be. What's a lot relative to the 15 million jobs that were created while Clinton was president? Yes, that's right, there were 15 million jobs created during those 8 years. And the unemployment rate was very, very low when W took over.

Housing bust under Bush / Obama? The housing bust started in 2005/2006 after the housing market peaked in mid-late 2005. Obama wouldn't take office for another 3 years following the onset of that disaster. How is it his housing bust, then?

[luckytxn 2,263]

Lets see if Obama the Socialist has the balls to balance the budget. He will get an even bigger pat on the back if he has a surplus.

The one thing that has everyone upset right now at both parties is deficit spending. And the Neocons new contract never mentioned to balance the budget but to lower the deficit. What kind of ####### is that?

Obama the Socialist had a friggin majority in both houses and the executive and couldn't pull off the big Socialist net ever in history. He will be known as the most inept President in history.

[DEDixon 39]

Ah, a bit of re-writing of history as well. Awesome. The unemployment rate was at 4.2% when W took office. So, if a lot of those jobs that were created while Slick Willie occupied the White House were long gone before he left office, how many would that be. What's a lot relative to the 15 million jobs that were created while Clinton was president? Yes, that's right, there were 15 million jobs created during those 8 years. And the unemployment rate was very, very low when W took over.

Housing bust under Bush / Obama? The housing bust started in 2005/2006 after the housing market peaked in mid-late 2005. Obama wouldn't take office for another 3 years following the onset of that disaster. How is it his housing bust, then?

again, clinton policies had nothing to with bringing about the internet or all the jobs created as a result of the internet, no matter who was president at the time, the job situation would have been the same. clinton was so bored since the internet boosted the economy like never before, he had time for monica.

no one lost their job because of bush, first the internet bubble busted and second 9/11 happened.

this news article is post 9/11 but speaks of jobless tech workers (internet bubble bust):

http://articles.sfgate.com/2002-12-25/news/17575467_1_benefit-extension-jobless-benefits-unemployment-benefits

you are right, housing peaked in mid-late 2005, it started to cool in late 2006, it took until 2007 for it to really get cold, after 2007 it began a rapid decline. still, it began with bush and it remains with obama, that is what i meant.

but, let's not forget nancy was there, both houses of congress were dem controlled starting in 2006 and they were just as blind to the housing mess as bush. i think more people blame banks, wall street, and the fed for the housing crisis than bush or the congress.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

again, clinton policies had nothing to with ... all the jobs created

no one lost their job because of bush...

I see. So there's really no point in looking at job creation records at all. If jobs are created, then it's not due to any specific economic agenda that a president may pursue and if jobs are lost, then the economic policies of the president have nothing to with that either.

Or is just that a strong job creation record under a Democrat don't count and lack of job creation under a Republican don't count but when jobs are created under a Republican, then credit is due and blame is to be assigned to a Democrat president that fails to create jobs?

That's just wonderful. Win-win for the right!

[DEDixon 39]

I see. So there's really no point in looking at job creation records at all. If jobs are created, then it's not due to any specific economic agenda that a president may pursue and if jobs are lost, then the economic policies of the president have nothing to with that either.

Or is just that a strong job creation record under a Democrat don't count and lack of job creation under a Republican don't count but when jobs are created under a Republican, then credit is due and blame is to be assigned to a Democrat president that fails to create jobs?

That's just wonderful. Win-win for the right!

spin it as you like, my point is that clinton didn't bring about the internet and the internet was the source of all those jobs. the internet created a lot of riches that created jobs outside of the internet too.

i've never attributed job creation to any president. in my mind, the president has little effect on job creation, especially in good times. and as we can see now, if presidents could create jobs, we wouldn't have 12% unemployment.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

spin it as you like, my point is that clinton didn't bring about the internet and the internet was the source of all those jobs. the internet created a lot of riches that created jobs outside of the internet too.

i've never attributed job creation to any president. in my mind, the president has little effect on job creation, especially in good times. and as we can see now, if presidents could create jobs, we wouldn't have 12% unemployment.

So, policy has no effect on the economy? Is that the long and short of what you're saying? The whole debate on what policies do and don't spur economic and job growth is a huge waste of time then? Great!

[DEDixon 39]

So, policy has no effect on the economy? Is that the long and short of what you're saying? The whole debate on what policies do and don't spur economic and job growth is a huge waste of time then? Great!

i didn't say that. i said none of clinton's policies created jobs during his presidency. if the internet had not come along, he would not have been reelected. the internet saved him. his 2 first years were loaded with giant mistakes by him and his wife. then the internet economy kicked in and saved him, because as just recently demonstrated, the american people vote people out when they can't shop and keep people in when they are too busy shopping. americans unfortunately are more concerned about shopping and facebooking than voting when the economy is good.

i give very little credit to pols when it comes to jobs. a little credit is due, but surely a good economy is primarily based on consumer demand, especially the US economy.

but, careful, the US isn't going to bounce out of this current crisis until at least obama's presidency ends in 2012 (so long obama). the next president will be a republican and the economy will bounce back a lot more during that time because most likely consumer demand will be greater than it is now. what i mean is that consumers now are having appliances and cars repaired when they break, they are also keeping near broken down appliances and cars longer. eventually, they'll have no choice but to buy new items and this is when the economy will bounce back. just my opinion. i definitely could be wrong. if there is a repub president after obama in 2012 and the economy does pick up quite a bit, i won't credit the repub president either.

check out car parts stocks - they went up as all other stocks were going down.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

i didn't say that. i said none of clinton's policies created jobs during his presidency. if the internet had not come along, he would not have been reelected. the internet saved him. his 2 first years were loaded with giant mistakes by him and his wife. then the internet economy kicked in and saved him, because as just recently demonstrated, the american people vote people out when they can't shop and keep people in when they are too busy shopping. americans unfortunately are more concerned about shopping and facebooking than voting when the economy is good.

i give very little credit to pols when it comes to jobs. a little credit is due, but surely a good economy is primarily based on consumer demand, especially the US economy.

but, careful, the US isn't going to bounce out of this current crisis until at least obama's presidency ends in 2012 (so long obama). the next president will be a republican and the economy will bounce back a lot more during that time because most likely consumer demand will be greater than it is now. what i mean is that consumers now are having appliances and cars repaired when they break, they are also keeping near broken down appliances and cars longer. eventually, they'll have no choice but to buy new items and this is when the economy will bounce back. just my opinion. i definitely could be wrong. if there is a repub president after obama in 2012 and the economy does pick up quite a bit, i won't credit the repub president either.

check out car parts stocks - they went up as all other stocks were going down.

We either steer away from a primarily domestic consumer demand driven economy or there will be no forceful recovery for decades to come. Remember that American households are trillions of dollars in debt. Couple that with negative income developments over the past decade with still no real relief in sight. The housing market will continue to drag many households down and severely limit their appetite and ability for consumption.

The middle class that has historically driven the US economy has been dismantled and it'll take a lot more than a couple more years to build it back up. As of right now, we have half a Congress that has no interest in re-building the middle class but has subscribed to further widen the income and wealth gap that has reached pre-Great Depression proportions already. Let the GOP run the ship as they want to and we'll look back at the Great Recession of the past couple of years as a relatively minor dent in our economy.

Bottom line, policy matters. If policy corrects the self-destructing forces of the market, the economy and the country will come out alright. If policy doubles down on those forces, well, we've seen what happens.

[DEDixon 39]

another reason i won't credit jobs to a president is because they are often in power with the opposite party in congress so i just can't see how another can map dems and repub presidencies to job creation and have it mean anything. american seems not to like it when both houses and the president are among the same party - they seem to allow it for 2 years maximum (of course there are rare exceptions, but this is how i remember it without digging).

[mawilson 2,133]

We either steer away from a primarily domestic consumer demand driven economy or there will be no forceful recovery for decades to come. Remember that American households are trillions of dollars in debt. Couple that with negative income developments over the past decade with still no real relief in sight. The housing market will continue to drag many households down and severely limit their appetite and ability for consumption.

The middle class that has historically driven the US economy has been dismantled and it'll take a lot more than a couple more years to build it back up. As of right now, we have half a Congress that has no interest in re-building the middle class but has subscribed to further widen the income and wealth gap that has reached pre-Great Depression proportions already. Let the GOP run the ship as they want to and we'll look back at the Great Recession of the past couple of years as a relatively minor dent in our economy.

Bottom line, policy matters. If policy corrects the self-destructing forces of the market, the economy and the country will come out alright. If policy doubles down on those forces, well, we've seen what happens.

I agree with your assessment, but raping the rich with higher taxes will not make the middle class

any richer - it'll make the government richer and create an entitlement class that is beholden to

the government for their livelihood.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I agree with your assessment, but raping the rich with higher taxes will not make the middle class

any richer - it'll make the government richer and create an entitlement class that is beholden to the government for their livelihood.

I don't think it's all about higher taxes for the rich. But when we look at the Bush tax cut extension debate, for example, consider that a two year extension of the tax cuts for incomes above 200/250 (roughly 140 billion dollars) would finance a $1,000.00 tax rebate check for each and every one of the 138 million taxpayers.

Neither would be the most effective way to stimulate the economy and job growth but the latter would most certainly outperform the former.

[mawilson 2,133]

I don't think it's all about higher taxes for the rich. But when we look at the Bush tax cut extension debate, for example, consider that a two year extension of the tax cuts for incomes above 200/250 (roughly 140 billion dollars) would finance a $1,000.00 tax rebate check for each and every one of the 138 million taxpayers.

Neither would be the most effective way to stimulate the economy and job growth but the latter would most certainly outperform the former.

Again, I agree with you.