American Politics MDCLXVIII - Warning! May contain non SB1070 posts

[alguien]

By that logic, the primary question we should be asking is not "how can we create jobs", but rather "how can we best encourage private industry to create jobs". Those are, at bottom, two completely different ways of looking at the problem that will lead to two completely different courses of action. The simplest way to "create jobs" is for the government to hand out a bunch of money and pay people to work. But if you ask the question from the perspective of private jobs, that's about the last thing you'd want to do.

While those two views could be seen as opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to bringing down unemployment, in reality I think that a good way to move forward exists somewhere in between, incorporating both philosophies.

Both direct government aid and private industry encouragement help, one in the short term and one in the long term. The debate should be over what proportion of funds should go where in the mix.

[awesome possum]

Gee, I googled "New Jersey Taxes Highest in Country", and you'll never guess the very first thing that popped up:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/44.html

Well hell. I guess instead of "highest tax rates in united states" or "state with highest tax rates" I just needed be more biased in my googling. Good job!

They have the highest state and local tax rates in the country. Which almost stands your argument on its head, because if they are the wealthiest, you'd think their rates wouldn't need to be nearly as high, would you? Unless, maybe, you had a hugely bloated patronage form of government that wasted money because it was so easy come, easy go.

Yes, so let's all be responsible for our actions and cut funding to schools.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Yes, so let's all be responsible for our actions and cut funding to schools.

Less than 10% of his cuts are education related. And in that regard....

"One state retiree, 49 years old, paid, over the course of his entire career, a total of $124,000 towards his retirement pension and health benefits. What will we pay him? $3.3 million in pension payments over his life and nearly $500,000 for health care benefits -- a total of $3.8m on a $120,000 investment. Is that fair?

A retired teacher paid $62,000 towards her pension and nothing, yes nothing, for full family medical, dental and vision coverage over her entire career. What will we pay her? $1.4 million in pension benefits and another $215,000 in health care benefit premiums over her lifetime. Is it “fair” for all of us and our children to have to pay for this excess?

The total unfunded pension and medical benefit costs are $90 billion. We would have to pay $7 billion per year to make them current. We don’t have that money—you know it and I know it. What has been done to our citizens by offering a pension system we cannot afford and health benefits that are 41% more expensive than the average fortune 500 company’s costs is the truly unfair part of this equation."

http://www.northjersey.com/news/state/021110_Full_Text_of_Governor_Chris_Christies_Budget_Speech.html?page=all

[BloodRider]

Part of what makes things so complicated to me is that I don't necessarily believe that private industry would do better at creating jobs in the absence of government spending. I think that at this moment in history the private sector largely jumped on this opportunity to trim a lot of fat.

Point of fact. Private industry did not create jobs in the last recovery. Its not known as the jobless recovery for nothing. There is little evidence that they have any incentive to do so this time around (in the US at least). We shall see - but there is an interest in keeping the US as a market, which is hard to do if we have to endure another jobless recovery. Last time, purchases were made off of debt. I just don't see anyone being able to do that again, at least not to the same extent.

My hope was that rather than direct hires money would be spent for creating new businesses, esp. in favored industries. It just has not worked out that way so far.

[AndyP]

My hope was that rather than direct hires money would be spent for creating new businesses, esp. in favored industries. It just has not worked out that way so far.

Who decides what industry should be favored? By what criteria? Has anyone at this point shown that they have that kind of wisdom?

[lokisnow]

Who decides what industry should be favored?

Republicans

By what criteria?

Is it defense related? if so, it is favored.

Has anyone at this point shown that they have that kind of wisdom?

We are very wise, when the favored industries were hurting in January of 2001 after nearly a decade of a malicious and evil president who stopped favoring these saintly titans of employment, our new president and administration did everything they could to start wars so that the industries would do better. :) Of course, by starting the wars to favor the industries and cutting taxes to favor the voters, the administration took america's future and pissed it down the sewer, creating such an enormous debt in eight years, and such an unprecedented expansion in spending and handing off a truly unprecendented carryover deficit to the next administration that it's entirely possible America won't be able to recover from helping out defense by starting our wars and cutting taxes absurdly low. While Bush didn't necessarily cause the economic crisis, he did leave america in such an incredibly weak and sickened state that the economic flu we've contracted may wind up killing off the country.

We are very very wise in the industries we favor.

[Brandon Stark]

Less than 10% of his cuts are education related. And in that regard....

Those numbers certainly look bad, but you're dealing with a profession that has sold itself on those very benefits for decades as a way to offset the fact that more traditional compensation is markedly lower for teachers than for other professions requiring graduate-level education.

Or you could be right, and Michigan could be totally justified in arbitrarily cutting 5% off the salary of all public employees in the same year that a % increase in payments toward retirement and benefits already went up.

...Especially when there aren't any plans to cut free lifetime health care for the legislature.

[Tempra]

President Barack Obama bluntly defended his administration's response to the undersea gusher fouling the Gulf of Mexico on Monday, telling an interviewer he has met with experts to learn "whose ass to kick."

Finally, a little passion.

"I was down there a month ago, before most of these talking heads were even paying attention to the Gulf," Obama told NBC's "Today" show in an interview scheduled to air Tuesday. "A month ago I was meeting with fishermen down there, standing in the rain talking about what a potential crisis this could be."

Uh? No you weren't. Which is why the public at large has such a negative view of your government's handling of the gulf oil spill, Mr. President:

A month and a half after the spill began, 69 percent in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll rate the federal response negatively. That compares with a 62 negative rating for the response to Katrina two weeks after the August 2005 hurricane.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/07/gulf.oil.obama/index.html?hpt=T2

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Media/poll-bp-oil-spill-rated-worse-katrina-criminal-charges/story?id=10846473

[Ormond]

Just wondered -- anyone voting in one of the many primary elections being held today? What have you thought of the primary election campaigns in your state?

[Frog Eater]

Just wondered -- anyone voting in one of the many primary elections being held today? What have you thought of the primary election campaigns in your state?

Here in South Carolina, the Republican primary for governor is awful. With no incumbent running, a gusher of cazy has opened up and quite frankly, I cannot fathom how any of these people plan on running a state. I believe Nikki Haley will win, despite the accusations that she is premiscuous (which should not matter). These accusations are being leveled at her by a guy who was working on another candidates campain and was paid $100k, right before he was "fired" for making these accusations. South Carolina politics are awful.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Hey, another South Carolina Boarder! :)

I voted for Nikki Haley mainly to give the finger to racist shitbag Jakey Knotts.

[Paladin of Ice]

Uh? No you weren't. Which is why the public at large has such a negative view of your government's handling of the gulf oil spill, Mr. President:

Do you ever get tired of being wrong, Tempra? Obama's first visit was on May 2nd which is... over a month ago.

May 02, 2010

Obama checks in on spill recovery efforts

President Barack Obama is going to get a firsthand update on the oil spill recovery efforts later this afternoon, during a brief visit to Louisiana.

After touching down in New Orleans around 1:30 p.m., he began the two-hour drive to Venice, La., for a closed-door briefing on the situation.

Obama is accompanied by his top energy adviser, Carol Browner, and his homeland security and counterterrorism czar, John Brennan. He has been regularly updated on the attempts to stanch the oil that is now flowing out of three leaks in a crumpled underwater pipe called a riser about 40 miles off the Louisiana coast. But this is Obama's first visit to the region since the April 20 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon Rig.

http://blogs.chron.com/newswatchenergy/archives/2010/05/obama_checks_in.html

[TrackerNeil]

Hey, thisis neat.

Unfortunately, I don't think it will get Obama and the Democratic Congress - in particular Nancy Pelosi - the credit they deserve, but it's nice to hear some validation of the law so many worked so hard to pass.

[alguien]

Finally, a little passion.

Uh? No you weren't. Which is why the public at large has such a negative view of your government's handling of the gulf oil spill, Mr. President:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/07/gulf.oil.obama/index.html?hpt=T2

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Media/poll-bp-oil-spill-rated-worse-katrina-criminal-charges/story?id=10846473

This post ranges from just factually wrong to a bit disingenuous. First of all, as was pointed out, he was there over a month ago and it was before it became such a headline in the news.

Second, you showed negative polls for the Federal government, not Obama himself, which is more like %45 positive against %55 negative. Still negative, but not as bad and its hard to look awesome at at time like this. Here's another poll that shows that Obama isn't taking as much flak as the "federal government" and not nearly as much as BP:

My link

But at least you aren't calling it Obama's Katrina. (though you gave a bit of a connection) That kind of bullshit really gets me. When 2,000 people have died and we've lost half a city, and if he had about a week's warning beforehand, then people can call it Obama's Katrina.

[Tempra]

Do you ever get tired of being wrong, Tempra? Obama's first visit was on May 2nd which is... over a month ago.

http://blogs.chron.com/newswatchenergy/archives/2010/05/obama_checks_in.html

The lie I was referring to was that he down there before most people cared. Sorry, but this has been a huge story since day 1. He showed up two weeks after the explosion because he was criticized heavily for his callous indifference. To now pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

[Tempra]

This post ranges from just factually wrong to a bit disingenuous. First of all, as was pointed out, he was there over a month ago and it was before it became such a headline in the news.

Second, you showed negative polls for the Federal government, not Obama himself, which is more like %45 positive against %55 negative. Still negative, but not as bad and its hard to look awesome at at time like this. Here's another poll that shows that Obama isn't taking as much flak as the "federal government" and not nearly as much as BP:

My link

But at least you aren't calling it Obama's Katrina. (though you gave a bit of a connection) That kind of bullshit really gets me. When 2,000 people have died and we've lost half a city, and if he had about a week's warning beforehand, then people can call it Obama's Katrina.

Notice I said "his government's handling." And it would hypocritical for him to deny responsibility after all the "buck stops here" talk during his campaign and among liberals in general during the bush years.

[alguien]

The lie I was referring to was that he down there before most people cared. Sorry, but this has been a huge story since day 1. He showed up two weeks after the explosion because he was criticized heavily for his callous indifference. To now pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

Oh, so he was lying about the fact that it was big news, not that he went. Interesting that you failed to make the distinction. Wonder why...? :dunno:

Actually, I remember talking with some friends from Louisiana on May 5, because we were in Vegas at the time and asking about it. It had been in a news item before, but it didn't explode until mid-May. So, wrong again.

[alguien]

Notice I said "his government's handling." And it would hypocritical for him to deny responsibility after all the "buck stops here" talk during his campaign and among liberals in general during the bush years.

Hypocritical of him to deny responsibility for something that's not his fault? Again, that's interesting.

So far, the only actual criticism I've seen of how his administration has handled it is that he's not showing enough "emotion" on camera.

That's frankly a bullshit criticism in my opinion and an pathetic attempt to stir up controversy and find fault where there is none. I don't want some weepy ninny whine about how much it sucks.

I notice that his administration has been sending large billion dollar bills to BP so far for cleanup. Interesting that its not featured more prominently in the media. Probably because it goes against the narrative they've already constructed.

[Tempra]

Oh, so he was lying about the fact that it was big news, not that he went. Interesting that you failed to make the distinction. Wonder why...? :dunno:

Actually, I remember talking with some friends from Louisiana on May 5, because we were in Vegas at the time and asking about it. It had been in a news item before, but it didn't explode until mid-May. So, wrong again.

He said he was there before the "talking heads" cared. I said he lied about that.

Well, if your friends said it wasn't a big story, despite near 24/7 coverage since the explosion, it must not be a big story.

I retract.

[Nymeria Sand]

It looks like Tony Hayward is the liar here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37572167/ns/disaster_in_the_gulf/

Hasn't he been denying that there are underwater plumes? How many are we up to now? 3 or 4?