Will Obama be re-elected in November if the unemployment rate stays over 8%?

Will Obama be re-elected in November if the unemployment rate stays over 8%?

DA60 said:

Will Obama be re-elected in November if the unemployment rate stays over 8%?

Click to expand...

Now that is a good question. I think it is entirely possible, but I think it would be really hard. If the September jobs report shows unemployment over 8, I would call Romney the favorite to win in November, barring any other major changes between now and then. If it does drop under 8 by then, Romney is probably in trouble.

most Americans are smart enough to understand that Obama really isn't at fault for this, as the European debt-crisis and China's reaction to it, is playing a large part in all of this.

DA60 said:

Will Obama be re-elected in November if the unemployment rate stays over 8%?

Click to expand...

Yes. Romney is such a lousy candidate that Obama would have to royally **** up in order for Romney to win.The republicans handed Obama 2012.

Thunder said:

most Americans are smart enough to understand that Obama really isn't at fault for this, as the European debt-crisis and China's reaction to it, is playing a large part in all of this.

Click to expand...

Attached is an interesting article about why US unemployment will remain so high. If true it could explain why Obama's attitude to reign in corporate America quickly changed after being elected POTUS.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article31909.html

Μολὼν λαβέ;1060665080 said:

Attached is an interesting article about why US unemployment will remain so high. If true it could explain why Obama's attitude to reign in corporate America quickly changed after being elected POTUS.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article31909.html

Click to expand...

What a hack. Other than spew blame in as many diverse and unrelated directions as possible, this moron is clueless, yet wants to sell us a (unpublished?) book. He cites the housing bubble, the "greedy" corporations, U.S. trade policy and corrupt politicians ALL as "the primary" cause of the slow U.S. economic recovery and the associated high unemployement. This guy is simply a moron, trying to sell a book. His (only?) "answer" was to blame China and impose tariffs on their goods which is weak at best. Of the many markets that are "depressed" in the U.S., trade with China is invloved in but a tiny fraction of them.

Thunder said:

most Americans are smart enough to understand...

Click to expand...

Say what????

I predict, out of desperation, that Obama will start a war with Iran, to "unite" the country, keep the economy off of page one and get the folks all riled up with the usual chants of USA, USA, USA...

Thunder said:

most Americans are smart enough to understand that Obama really isn't at fault for this, as the European debt-crisis and China's reaction to it, is playing a large part in all of this.

Click to expand...

What? Obama, the same Obama, that blames Bush for having used the "Obama" tax rates to ruin the economy? The same Obama that was going to close GITMO, try the 9/11 terrorists in NYC, cut the defict in half, and keep unemployment "well below" 8% using "stimulus" and create (or save) a massive number of U.S. jobs? The same Obama that was for open and honest gov't like he showed us with Solyndra, the XL pipeline, the Fast & Fuzzy cover-up and the GSA Las Vegas parties? The same Obama that saw no red or blue America just a wonderful America, that now tries to describe the GOP as anti-everything? The same Obama that is for gays, women, blacks, latinos, illegal aliens, the working man, teachers, firefighters, auto workers, the little guy and any other specific voting block he needs at the moment? The same Obama that has not had a budget passed since he took office? The same Obama that CONSTANTLY fund raises from the very rich and greedy folks that he blames for not paying their "fair share", yet that he somehow will not tax any higher?

Μολὼν λαβέ;1060665080 said:

Attached is an interesting article about why US unemployment will remain so high. If true it could explain why Obama's attitude to reign in corporate America quickly changed after being elected POTUS.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article31909.html

Click to expand...

Oh man!

Same old, same old.

When things get rough, protectionism.

America tried that before...it was called the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot–Hawley_Tariff_Act

It started a global trade war.

In 1930, the year it passed, the unemployment rate was 8.7%.

Two years later it was 23.6%.

What was the US unemployment rate in 1930

What a big help that was...not.

Μολὼν λαβέ;1060665080 said:

Attached is an interesting article about why US unemployment will remain so high. If true it could explain why Obama's attitude to reign in corporate America quickly changed after being elected POTUS.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article31909.html

Click to expand...

Interesting article, let me quote from it:

Let’s take a look at each of these misguided viewpoints. Establishment economists working for the left-wing contingency of America’s fascist government claim that the high unemployment rate is merely a consequence of cyclical unemployment, which is related to changes in demand that occur through business and economic cycles. During the first two years of the Obama presidency, the cyclical unemployment argument was unanimously accepted.

In contrast, establishment economists working for the right-wing contingency of America’s fascist government claim that the persistently high unemployment rate seen in the U.S. is due to structural factors. Thus, according to these hacks, the lack of growth is due to what is known as structural unemployment. More recently, the structural unemployment argument has been disseminated for the sole purpose of increasing the momentum of the Republican Party going into the 2012 elections.

Click to expand...

Not only is he building straw men here, he is throwing out ad homs in a hysterically over the top manner. This article is proof that even idiots can own a blog.

Μολὼν λαβέ;1060665080 said:

Attached is an interesting article about why US unemployment will remain so high. If true it could explain why Obama's attitude to reign in corporate America quickly changed after being elected POTUS.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article31909.html

Click to expand...

I tried to get through this article. I really did. I think I got as far as the fact that the Jewish mafia runs the president and Kennedy was killed because he wouldn't bow down.

Unemployment will remain high. Fact is, there is no quick fix. There are bad fixes like the the last stimulus and other plans I have seen put forward. The best answer, imo, is to stop with the class warfare drama, stop spending so ridiculously much on wasteful programs, and improve welfare/unemployment programs. This requires accepting that no answer will suddenly bring wealth and a 3% unemployment rate back.

I don't know what it means for the election, though. I find it hard to guess anything with this stuff. I was at a dear friend's house yesterday and when the usual anti-Romney rhetoric came on tv, she gave me the list of Democratic talking points like she was reading a prompter. Then when the 14.4 unemployment rating came on for blacks, it was all about how Bush caused that. I didn't correct her or debate, but her entire household believed that stuff. I have seen similar things with right wing talking points among other business owners. Seems like it will just be another competition for who can energize their base more this time around.

Keridan said:

I tried to get through this article. I really did. I think I got as far as the fact that the Jewish mafia runs the president and Kennedy was killed because he wouldn't bow down.

Click to expand...

I missed that, but you are right, it is in there. ****ing hilarious.

Unemployment will remain high. Fact is, there is no quick fix. There are bad fixes like the the last stimulus and other plans I have seen put forward. The best answer, imo, is to stop with the class warfare drama, stop spending so ridiculously much on wasteful programs, and improve welfare/unemployment programs. This requires accepting that no answer will suddenly bring wealth and a 3% unemployment rate back.

I don't know what it means for the election, though. I find it hard to guess anything with this stuff. I was at a dear friend's house yesterday and when the usual anti-Romney rhetoric came on tv, she gave me the list of Democratic talking points like she was reading a prompter. Then when the 14.4 unemployment rating came on for blacks, it was all about how Bush caused that. I didn't correct her or debate, but her entire household believed that stuff. I have seen similar things with right wing talking points among other business owners. Seems like it will just be another competition for who can energize their base more this time around.

Click to expand...

Improving welfare/unemployment problems really does not solve any problems. While infrastructure is transient jobs, there is a ton of that type work that will need to be done, so why not knock it out now, create some jobs, and down the road have less to spend on that type thing?

Redress said:

I missed that, but you are right, it is in there. ****ing hilarious.

Click to expand...

I had to read it twice to be sure I wasn't imagining it.

Improving welfare/unemployment problems really does not solve any problems. While infrastructure is transient jobs, there is a ton of that type work that will need to be done, so why not knock it out now, create some jobs, and down the road have less to spend on that type thing?

Click to expand...

Improving welfare/unemployment is one item in a list of things that need doing. I don't want the programs gone or expanded, but improved. There needs to be better encouragement to get jobs and training. Why not give them the money they would get on those programs for working as an apprentice or journeyman? You could get those roads built with that labor. This is just one suggestion. Handouts don't do much by themselves, but coupled with other productive measures, they might do some good.

As for infrastructure spending, I'm all for it. The problem is it tends to be executed in such a wasteful manner that we end up paying outrageous amounts for everything and producing jobs at an astronomical cost per job. I know it's predictable for someone who follows libertarian beliefs to suggest this, but I do think we should privatize those programs. Let companies hurting for work bid for road construction and part of that bid should include how many jobs they will create and how much each job will pay. Less money to the bureaucrats and more to the companies and people in need. You also get increased efficiency out of the deal.

I imagine we have the same goals, but will again find we like different paths to get there.

ttwtt78640 said:

I predict, out of desperation, that Obama will start a war with Iran, to "unite" the country, keep the economy off of page one and get the folks all riled up with the usual chants of USA, USA, USA...

Click to expand...

I hope you were being sarcastic. Obama would not start war with Iran assuming he keeps on the same line as his foreign policy has been

DA60 said:

Will Obama be re-elected in November if the unemployment rate stays over 8%?

Click to expand...

Yes, because Obama is not a Republican. The Repubians are done for a while.

jamesrage said:

Yes. Romney is such a lousy candidate that Obama would have to royally **** up in order for Romney to win.The republicans handed Obama 2012.

Click to expand...

who was a better candidate? no one with a brain believes batgirl, the slimy salamander or Santorum (what a loon-his abortion position made my uber far right wife almost hurl) were better.

jet57 said:

Yes, because Obama is not a Republican. The Repubians are done for a while.

Click to expand...

LOL its good seeing the clearly wrong position proclaimed so boldly. Right now I think its a toss up. Obama has the MSM on his side along with the fact that almost half the country are sucking on the public tit. plus lots of rich net tax payers become more wealthy when the dems are in power and government is bigger (trial lawyers, union bosses, those who make money off of the poverty-welfare business)

what is working against Obama is his record, his lack of competence and the fact that the main reason people voted for him is generally not sustainable.

jet57 said:

Yes, because Obama is not a Republican. The Repubians are done for a while.

Click to expand...

Just like they were '10? Romney out-raised Obama in May and raised over 4m within 24 hours of the healthcare ruling... I don't think Republicans are done yet
.

If Obama is re-elected IMHO it will be due large part to the culture of group identity interestingly driven to a large degree by prominent Republicans. They've made the political debate not about the issues but about the the personalities and groups. When they did get around to talking about the issues, very often if was done so in a way that paints large voting blocks as the enemy from cracking down on Hispanics to women who what family planning services included in their healthcare are a bunch of (expletives) to any time kids get into an after school fight its an Obama inspired race war. Even if you want to focus on the issues as a voter its difficult not to think in doing so you're adding your endorsement to highly insulting rhetoric of the past 4 years directed at them.

I also think team Obama has done a good job at making Ronmey's solutions to the economic problems as moving more jobs overseas and cut salaries and benefits so that the stick holders can get paid more.

Redress said:

Now that is a good question. I think it is entirely possible, but I think it would be really hard. If the September jobs report shows unemployment over 8, I would call Romney the favorite to win in November, barring any other major changes between now and then. If it does drop under 8 by then, Romney is probably in trouble.

Click to expand...

when did 8% become acceptable or the new normal?

cpwill said:

when did 8% become acceptable or the new normal?

Click to expand...

Where did I say it had?

TheLastIndependent said:

I hope you were being sarcastic. Obama would not start war with Iran assuming he keeps on the same line as his foreign policy has been

Click to expand...

Well, there are three players in this game - Iran, the US, and Israel.

Iran's goal is to continue to delay and stall until a Nuclear weapon becomes a "fact on the ground" and they are untouchable, a'la North Korea.

Israel's Goal is to prevent this from happening, without losing the backing of the US.

Obama's Goal is to get reelected.


Israel faces a decision point between now and the election:

If Obama wins, then the game is effectively up - the US is unlikely to strike Iran to keep them from gaining a nuclear capability, and the punishments that a now-unaccountable President Obama (who doesn't need to run for reelection and is therefore... how did he put it... "more flexible") can bring to bear are prohibitive for the Israeli state.

If Obama loses, then a President Romney is likely to be much more accommodating to Israeli desires to put a pointed end to Iran's nuclear program.

The Decision Point, therefore, is at when Israeli Intelligence comes to its' final conclusion at a predetermined time-hack as to who will win the election. If Mossad decides that Romney will win, then Israel will wait. If Mossad decides that Obama will win, then the Prime Minister faces the choice of acceding to a constant overhanging existential threat to his people controlled by religious nutcases, or launching a strike pre election. Obama's higher goal of reelection, in such a case, would require him not to immediately respond by seeking to isolate and abandon Israel. The US will support Israel to one measure or another, ensuring that we will, indeed, have increased the state of conflict that we are already in with Iran prior to the election. That close to November, everything up to and including this will be politicized, and Obama will absolutely attempt to capitalize on what he was effectively forced to do.

Redress said:

Where did I say it had?

Click to expand...

You seemed to suggest it as a decision point for the American populace: over 8% bad, under 8% good. That is a presentation that implies a normal of 8%.

cpwill said:

You seemed to suggest it as a decision point for the American populace: over 8% bad, under 8% good. That is a presentation that implies a normal of 8%.

Click to expand...

No, nor is it nearly that clear cut actually. You are reading far too much into what I wrote. The unemployment rate will be a negative for Obama, the higher, the more of a negative. Does that make it clearer?