This paragraph ought to scare the Hell out of anyone who wants to see a second Obama term

[dsc]

But there is little support for such an approach inside the administration. A series of departures has left few economists among Mr. Obama’s senior advisers. Several of his political advisers are skeptical about the merits of stimulus spending, and they are certain about the politics: voters do not like it. Mr. Plouffe and Mr. Daley share the view that a focus on deficit reduction is an economic and political imperative, according to people who have spoken with them. Voters believe that paying down the debt will help the economy, and the White House agrees, although it wants to avoid cutting too much spending while the economy remains weak.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/us/politics/14econ.html?_r=4&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

The above is from a New York Times article about what the Obama administration is debating about doing economically. This would be as if, in 1942, FDR had very few military advisers and felt that the best way to end the war was to drop bombs in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Fixing this economy should be job 1 right now. He should have almost nothing but economic advisers and his political advisers should, at the very least, not be economic ignoramouses. He might be able to win if the economy is not fixed but it would be vastly harder. The simplest way to win reelection is to have demonstrable improvement of the economy in the next 9 months. Having few economic advisers and listening to political advisers who apparently know nothing about economics isn't the way to go.

[scheming daemons]

1. the alternative to a 2nd Obama term is a 1st term for a GOP choice

Think about that while you are working so hard to stop a 2nd Obama term.

There's no progressive white knight coming through that door.

You'll either get Obama or you'll get Romney/Perry. That's a simple fact.

Ignore it if you wish, but it us still a fact.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vi5]

5. Uh..that doesn't seem to have been the point....

The point seemed to be (and stated explicitly) that if someone wants a second Obama term then it should concern them that the administration seems to be tone deaf on the economy, and thinks that reducing the deficit is what is going to fix it.

I don't see anywhere in that post about working to defeat Obama.

So basically, your response is that the only tactic you want anyone to use in advocating for Obama's re-election is that Bachman or Perry would be worse.

Sounds like a winning strategy.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dsc]

6. I didn't stock his adminstration, he did

I am old enough to remember the real Jimmy Carter, not the historical Jimmy Carter. Carter actually had many, many accomplishments in his Presidency. In foreign policy he built on Nixon's detente with SALT, he had the Panama Canal Treaty, he had the Camp David Accords. Domestically he deregulated airlines, phone companies, created two new cabinet agencies, and had a raft of other legislative accomplishments. What brought him down was the hostage crisis and his inability to fix the economy. I see an alarming similarity to Obama's clear refusal to see that the economy is a problem. We have spent the past half year talking about deficits to the near exclusion of producing jobs. Unemployment is 9.1%. I am not the reason unemployment is 9.1% and we spent six months talking about deficits. I am not saying he is the reason unemployment is 9.1% but he sure is a huge part of the reason we spent the last six months talking about deficits to the exclusion of jobs.

[Hutzpa]

10. I am not the reason employment is 9.1%?

oh really? so Obama is responsible for the high unemployment, ok, didn't Obama
took over with 10 plus percent unemployment? or are you being willfully ignorant
to that fact.

[dsc]

16. These words were in my post

directly by where I state the rate of unemployment.

I am not saying he is the reason unemployment is 9.1% but he sure is a huge part of the reason we spent the last six months talking about deficits to the exclusion of jobs.

I decided to bold them since you apparently didn't see them. Now, yes, Bush is to blame for the unemployment being 9.1%, just like Nixon was to blame for the inflation that Jimmy Carter couldn't vanquish. But after a certain amount of time the electorate is going to demand results. It would be way easier to make the case if Obama weren't spending six months talking about the deficit instead of jobs.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RKWM]

36. Seriously??? Talking was all it was going to take???

I don't think that talking about jobs was going to create them, and I believe that review of the text of each of Obama's public comments would in fact mention jobs -- so they were "talked about" persistently and without exclusion. Feel better?

The "six months" talking about deficits would have been two weeks if the tea party had not decided to insist that budget be linked to the debt ceiling vote....so if the lack of actual action in the direction of creating jobs is bugging you, then be certain to direct the criticism to the the jerks who hijacked the process.

Policy and law that leads to job creation ultimately has to come out of Congress. The house, for all the repubs claiming to be focused on jobs, proposed no jobs bills. They have done nothing but far right social bills.

[dsc]

46. It might have helped

He could have rolled out his veteran's tax credit during the six months. He could have gone to each district where a GOP rep asked for stimulus funds and personally handed him or her a check. He could have proposed his infastructure bank in front of every run down road and bridge in the country. He did none of that.

[Armstead]

20. The point is we need an improved Obama 2.0

Any input that might make him more effective as a president and a candidate is NOT trying to defeat him.

[harun]

48. He'll campaign as Obama 2.0 but if he get's elected to the 2nd term I think

we'll still get Obama Beta. Trying to make the GOP love him.

I don't think he has good advisers right now. He needs some real people talking to him, people who are out of work, out of a home, out of health insurance, etc.

[Cosmocat]

38. This is the bottom line ...

He is not beyond criticism, and we all have been disappointed on some outcomes, but christ sakes alive, do people even get that their subject lines are EXACTLY the same subject lines as you would see in Freeperville?

[ProSense]

2. Actually,

what's scaring the hell out of me is this OP. Kind reminds me of this from Big Government: When Obama Loses America Wins

It would be a good idea if people ignored NYT gossip and focus on the President's specific proposals.

[Peacetrain]

3. +1

they hear what they want to

[Jakes Progress]

28. Pot meet kettle.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RC]

7. What scares me are the Obama supporters that do not see the problem.

[vi5]

12. No, they do not at all..

There is no criticism at all, at any point to be levelled at this president. For any reason.

Anything that has gone wrong in the past 3 years, anything that has not gotten done or not been done well is everyone else's fault.

Someone else decided to make bipartisanship the priority of all legislation, not Obama.
Someone else stocked his cabinet, not Obama.
Someone else decided to put together the deficit commission and focus on that, not Obama.

Also, none of the many people, quoted in the many articles that show a recurring pattern of ineptitude and tone-deafness in his administrations approach are real. Every one of those articles is wrong.

And every quote he's ever given about things that aren't progressive or aren't in line with liberalism are all misquoted or taken out of context.

And if you don't believe all of this stuf then you might as well just be casting your ballot for Rick Perry right now.

[Dawgs]

32. +++++++++++++++

Post of the day, so far.

:hi:

[RKWM]

37. Did you have a point to make?

What scares me is that you have made no point and no suggestion here. You seem to substitute some fantasy thing about the naughty "Obama people" for having a recommendation or a contructive criticism.

Could it be that those who support Obama simply prefer something with content over your anti-obama complaint?

For example--- I would argue that finding "many people" in "many articles" showing anything at all is irrelevant. Were you thinking that this was a popularity contest? These people (no matter how many there are or how much they write) would need to be right. Failing to make convincing argument on their behalf would seem to be your problem and not those who support Obama. Perhaps those who support Obama are simply used to a higher standard than "But mommy--- look all these people in all these articles say...".

I think advanced analytical thinking is a good thing.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vi5]

42. Also...

if I upset the poor "Obama people for having a recommendation or contructive(sic) criticism" then what exactly is the recommendation of theirs that I missed?

Also, you proved exactly the point I was making. Unless you can tell me some things that you think Obama did wrong, then you prove my exact point. Which is that any criticism of this president from any left of center standpoint is dismissed out of hand by his acolytes and sycophants. These people put party above principle and personality above patriotism. If you can point to me one article or editorial or whatever that cites people close to the administration that these same people DON'T dismiss out of hand, then you will prove my point wrong.

The point is that these people I'm referring to will hear no criticism of the president. NONE. Every single complaint, every single criticism is pushed back on with some excuse or another, or simply a "But the other guy did something worse!!!!"

If that's your standard for integrity and success, then bravo. What a fulfilling existence that must be. Some of us would like slightly more than "We don't suck as much as the other guy."

[uponit7771]

15. Obama will slawsh SS, Obama will slash medicare, kill bambi and bow to George Bush...

...at what point are these M$M made up memes and basher histrionics going to be put in their proper perspective?

[Armstead]

22. Do you honestly believe the long-term deficit is a bigger priority than the current economy?

Just wondering.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RKWM]

40. what???

Do you honestly think that the world is linear and two dimensional?? Everything must be "bigger" or "smaller"??

While the current economy and the federal deficit are intimately intertwined they are best considered by 2nd grade analysis. They really don't fit the "Circle the ball that is bigger or smaller." test well.

Some things simply cannot be dumbed down enough to make them accessible to discussion by the tea party, Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann.

[dsc]

13. From your link

This is the only specifics you offer as to Obama's plan.

The payroll tax cut that put $1,000 back in the average family’s pocket this year? Let’s extend it.

I concede this is stimulative to some degree. But since this is a continuation it won't produce one new job it will, to the extent it is stimulative, prevent the lost of jobs.

Construction workers who’ve been jobless since the housing boom went bust? Let’s put them back to work rebuilding America.

How by waving a magic wand? Not one cent proposed here. I would love to see us rebuild bridges, highways, and build high speed trains but that funding has dried up. Without some specifics this isn't much.

Let’s cut red tape in the patent process so entrepreneurs can get good ideas to market more quickly.

I admit to having no idea the extent to which our patent process is a problem. I have literally never heard this complaint until just recently and the process has run about the same way for over 200 years. I can't imagine it is a job killer of the nth degree.

Let’s finish trade deals so we can sell more American-made goods around the world.

I am happy to see him include labor provisions in this. But still, I am very skeptical about how many jobs will come from this and am beyond skepitical that the jobs will show up fast enough from this.

Let’s connect the hundreds of thousands of brave Americans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan to businesses that need their incredible skills and talents.

Great symbolic idea. But it is a drop in a huge bucket

During a visit to Washington's Navy Yard, Obama unveiled a "reverse boot camp" program to help soldiers return to civilian life and set a goal for companies to hire or train 100,000 unemployed veterans and their spouses by the end of next year.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/05/usa-economy-military-idUSN1E7741CQ20110805

We need to have over 100k jobs a month just to keep even.

quotes from you in bold my answer in text.

[ProSense]

25. Hmmmm?

This is the only specifics you offer as to Obama's plan.

The payroll tax cut that put $1,000 back in the average family’s pocket this year? Let’s extend it.

I concede this is stimulative to some degree. But since this is a continuation it won't produce one new job it will, to the extent it is stimulative, prevent the lost of jobs.

Construction workers who’ve been jobless since the housing boom went bust? Let’s put them back to work rebuilding America.

How by waving a magic wand? Not one cent proposed here. I would love to see us rebuild bridges, highways, and build high speed trains but that funding has dried up. Without some specifics this isn't much.

Let’s cut red tape in the patent process so entrepreneurs can get good ideas to market more quickly.

I admit to having no idea the extent to which our patent process is a problem. I have literally never heard this complaint until just recently and the process has run about the same way for over 200 years. I can't imagine it is a job killer of the nth degree.

Let’s finish trade deals so we can sell more American-made goods around the world.

I am happy to see him include labor provisions in this. But still, I am very skeptical about how many jobs will come from this and am beyond skepitical that the jobs will show up fast enough from this.

Let’s connect the hundreds of thousands of brave Americans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan to businesses that need their incredible skills and talents.

Great symbolic idea. But it is a drop in a huge bucket

During a visit to Washington's Navy Yard, Obama unveiled a "reverse boot camp" program to help soldiers return to civilian life and set a goal for companies to hire or train 100,000 unemployed veterans and their spouses by the end of next year.

What's most interesting is the characterization of the payroll tax holiday as "stimulative to some degree," but the plan to rebuild America (the infrastructure bank) is "waving a magic wand" and the plan to put Veterans back to work (the civilian jobs program) is a "great symbolic idea. But it is a drop in a huge bucket."

OMG, these proposal should "scare the Hell out of anyone who wants to see a second Obama term"!!!

"We need to have over 100k jobs a month just to keep even."

<...>

Through the first seven months of 2011, the economy has added 930,000 total non-farm jobs or just 133 thousand per month. This is a better pace of payroll job creation than last year, but the economy still has 6.8 million fewer payroll jobs than at the beginning of the 2007 recession.

link

[dsc]

31. The words infansructure bank don't appear in your quote

so not being psychic I had no idea that is what you were referring to. On the rest, you are making my point for me. Even 133k jobs a month isn't keeping pace. The veterans idea will produce 100k jobs by the end of this year, that is 25k a month. So yes, it is a great symbolic idea and one the GOP will be hard pressed to say no to, but 25k jobs a month when we need 133k jobs a month is pretty much symbolic. To lower unemployment by 1% in the next nine months we would need about 225k jobs a month. To lower it by .5 percent we would need around 163k jobs a month.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/how-many-jobs-does-it-take-to-hold-the-unemployment-rate-constant

This one should not be all that hard but the papers have numbers all over the place. Let's turn to our old friend, arithmetic, to shed some light on the topic. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that the labor force is growing at the rate of 0.7 percent a year. The current size of the labor force is 153.9 million. This implies that we need about 1.1 million jobs a year to keep even with the growth of the labor force. (The number would be a bit less if the 6 percent share of self-employed in the labor force held constant.) That translates into a bit over 90,000 a month.

The 151,000 jobs reported for October is about 60,000 more than is needed to keep the unemployment rate from raising. At this pace it would reduce the pool of unemployed workers by 720,000 over the course of a year. With a gap of about 10 million jobs at present, this rate of job growth would fill the gap in around 14 years.

In order to fill this gap in a reasonable period of time, say 3 years, we would need job growth of 370,000 a month. This would bring the economy back to normal levels of unemployment by late 2013, six years after the onset of the recession.

The above is admittedly an old article (Nov 10) when the rate was 9.8%. So some progress has, indeed been made, but not nearly enough and the numbers do work out pretty much as I was saying. 25k is a drop in the bucket.

[ProSense]

34. That makes no sense.

"The veterans idea will produce 100k jobs by the end of this year, that is 25k a month. So yes, it is a great symbolic idea and one the GOP will be hard pressed to say no to, but 25k jobs a month when we need 133k jobs a month is pretty much symbolic."

The Veterans job's program is not in lieu of any other job creation. As for the information you provided, what the hell does that have to do with the fact that the average monthly job creation in 2011 is 133K?

[dsc]

39. To show we need more like 200k jobs a month

to reduce unemployment appreciably.

[uponit7771]

14. WHO CARES ABOUT FACTS !! /sarcasm

[dsc]

19. apparently you don't

since you haven't bothered to read my answer to his post, which was posted 4 minutes before yours.

[RC]

4. I do not understand, about what's not to understand.

Living Wage Jobs are what drives the economy. A thriving economy is what generates taxes. Healthy, balanced tax collection by the Federal government allows it to function for "We the people..." and pay to its debts.

Nobody on the verge of bankruptcy can afford to cut their income even further. And yet that is the solution that is being offered to escape bankruptcy. I do not understand, about what's not to understand.

[OHdem10]

9. It is sad, that the case for Stimulus Spending was and has never

been made. Instead the TP has drowned the nation
with cut cut cut. Smart Economists and some Business
Men and Bankers know the Cut Cut Cut will be harmful
to the economy right now.

Sounds as if the WH has only heard TP. Whatever,
happened to Leaders who came out and explained the
complete situation to the Public making the case
for short-term stimulus while at the same time
drawing up a specific Deficit Reduction over 10
to 12 years. NOT A GENERAL OUTLINE. Specifics.

At one time we had real Leaders from both Parties
Mitchell, Moynihan, H. Baker, R. who would have
come out together assuaging the Publics Fear.

Oh, I forgot this was before the Conservatives
and Whackos took over and it is now more important
to protect their seat in Congress than do what
is good for the country.

The People in WH are not much help if they can only
say--Oh we better do what a Minority in the Country
wants. Never explaining how the cut cut cuts
are wrong, but there is a way to achieve deficit
reduction and at the same time get some Americans
to work.

When Bernake gave the markets the signal--no increase in rates for 2 years. That should tell everyone, this unemployment situation is here to stay.

[Enrique]

11. but that strategy might work for him

no, the economy doesn't get better, but Obama doesn't get blamed, Congress does. So they re-elect Obama.

[dsc]

17. It might

I concede he could win despite a high unemployment rate even if there is no improvement. But he would be far more likely to win if we were showing improvement.

[OHdem10]

21. Gallop Tracking Poll this AM. Obama at 39% Approval.

His approval rating has steadily dropped since
He made that GRAND BARGAIN GESTURE and put SS
Medicare and Medicaid. Since that time he insists
on RW Talking Points. The Independents have fallen
off and according Gallop--losing Surburbs.

Tell me who is going to re-elect him.

Right now 39% includes his base plus a few.

Fake Republicans do not win. 2010 showed us that.

[Tarheel_Dem]

43. "Gallop"? WTF is "Gallop"? No wonder your numbers are wrong, you've been looking at "Gallop".

:rofl: Meanwhile, GALLUP says:

http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx

"Fake Republicans" do not win? :spray:

As you & many of Obama's detractors keep telling us, "polls don't mean squat this far out". So when he hits the mid to upper 40's again, I hope you'll come back to explain what it means.
:rofl:

It'd be great if you guys could pick a meme, and stick with it. :hi:

[dsc]

44. actually all snark about spelling aside

your very own link shows he was absolutely, dead right. Gallup showed in your own link him with a 41% rate with a +2 direction. That means he was at 39% (41-2). The words you are looking for is sorry I was such a snark.

[Tarheel_Dem]

45. Only in your world can 41 be turned into 39.

Does this mean the president's on the upswing? :rofl:

[dsc]

47. From the text of your very own link

President Obama's job approval rating dropped to 40% during the week spanning Aug. 8-14, the lowest weekly average of his administration. Obama's three-day average fell to a new low of 39% for Aug. 11-13, marking the first time this average has been below 40% since he took office.

Again, this was on the very first page of your very own link in black and white. The sole edit I made was to embolden the text.

[Armstead]

26. or he also gets blamed.

[Armstead]

18. This is IMPORTANT and THIS IS SOMETHING WE PROLES COULD DO

The Obama team is trying to figure out what needs to be done, what their message should over the next year or so. They are creating Obama 2.0 as we speak.

If they are giving bad advice, then we can and should do whatever we can to counter this inbreeding. We could at least send messages to the White House, the Obama campaign, etc. to offer some different views from out here. Let them know that we care more about the economy than the Republicans' deficit boogeyman, for example.

Also the "professional left" can make a valid contribution. Their criticisms are at least a counterpoint to the Chicago/Washington/Wall St. clique. Maybe it will cause Obama to at least consider the alternatives.

[Honeycombe8]

23. That doesn't scare me. Why should that scare anyone?

That he has few economists left as sr. advisors? Well, what advice he's been getting so far has been wrong, apparently. Paying down the debt? I agree that that's a good thing to do, in conjunction with raising revenues. There's no secret that the rating agencies, most economists, Obama, and almost all Democrats in Congress, as well as a large majority of voters, thinks that is the way to go to help the economy (over the long haul, I guess).

[dsc]

24. actually most economists disagree

that making cuts now is a good idea.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

33. And Perry and Bachmann should scare the hell out of anyone who doesn't.

[Cali_Democrat]

35. It is very frightening indeed

Although not particularly surprising.

[saras]

49. Hopefully the article is crap, otherwise we really do have no hope...

"Several of his political advisers are skeptical about the merits of stimulus spending, and they are certain about the politics: voters do not like it."

"a focus on deficit reduction is an economic and political imperative, according to people who have spoken with them. Voters believe that paying down the debt will help the economy"

If Obama has people feeding him this shit, and he's taking them seriously at this point in time, then he really is as bad, or worse, than anything I've ever read about him on DU.


Those are Tea Party political points - they have no currency or support anywhere else.

[ClarkUSA]

50. Are you trying to justify the defeat of Pres. Obama in the 2012 general election, dsc?

Yet some people think Bill Clinton was the Second Coming, He who passed NAFTA against the opposition of a majority of House Democrats and only prevailed with Republican support. :eyes:

[Pryderi]

51. 2 Words. Supreme Court.

[Armstead]

52. More Words

Obama will not get to appoint any judges if he runs a bad campaign that is out of touch with the concerns both of his base and those independent swing voters.

[ClarkUSA]

53. 83% of "his base" thinks he's doing fine and so does the independent voter in this NYT story...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x747225

Those who keep attacking President Obama haven't got a clue.

[bhikkhu]

54. And you don't find repuplican economics scary? That's bizarre

The paragraph says nothing in particular that worries me - just the regular stuff.

Anyone remember James Watt and the big push in the 80's to open public lands to exploitation? And under bush, the first years where the repugs were determined to open roadless lands, wilderness lands, and public lands in general to mining, drilling, logging, development, whatever? That's the cornerstone of repug economics, and that's what I worry most about - we're teetering into a sixth great extinction event, and climate change is accelerating...I would trust Obama over any repug to give us the best chance of a future as a country.