Mid-Term Elections 2010: The Latest

[Shady]

Real Clear Politics now has Republicans picking up 9 Senate seats in November. Personally, I think that's probably one or two seats too high.

[Moonlight Graham]

How about that reference to slavery? Do you think it's appropriate for Obama use slavery to garner support in an election? It cheapens that particular struggle to me.

To be fair, Obama doesn't straight-out refer to "slavery". He said "great struggles for equal rights and civil rights."

Many things fall under that category, including women's rights, gay rights, and black civil rights that had nothing to do with slavery (ie: black rights movements in the 20thC).

But i do think part of what Obama is implying with that statement is indeed black rights/slavery.

[Shady]

Apparently slavery's winning. Unemployment is now up over 10%.

Gallup Finds U.S. Unemployment at 10.1% in September

PRINCETON, NJ -- Unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, increased to 10.1% in September -- up sharply from 9.3% in August and 8.9% in July. Much of this increase came during the second half of the month -- the unemployment rate was 9.4% in mid-September -- and therefore is unlikely to be picked up in the government's unemployment report on Friday.

Gallup

This is the biggest reason why the Dems are gonna have a rough mid-term election.

[punked]

1. Governments don't create jobs. They should create an environment that's favourable to the private sector, which will create real long-term job growth.

I find it funny you say that because you seem to be pretty hard on Obama about Job creations even thought the last 10 Months the private sector has created jobs in all those months while all job loss was in the public sector. So there go again Shady wanting it both ways.

[sharkman]

As the Mid-terms loom large, the unemployment issue is not the only one causing major trouble for Democrat candidates. Voters are concerned about all of the trillions the federal government has been throwing around for the last couple of years. Obama care, the stimulus and the auto bailouts have them outright mad. Rasmussen's results make up a dire warning for Obama supporters.

But, tellingly, voters not affiliated with either party also feel strongly that supporters of the health care law, the auto bailouts and the stimulus should not be returned to Congress.

I have noticed the main strategy of the Obama administration in this election season is to promote fear of Republicans, the tea party and conservatives in general. He even pointed out a lot of money being raised on their side in large amounts could be from insurance companies or foreign countries. Funny, during the 2008 campaign he didn't seem to mind that he didn't have to disclose where his 10's of millions came from but now that the Dem's are being outdone in the money department it becomes a concern. Anyway, the fearmongering ain't working.

Edited October 21, 2010 by sharkman

[ToadBrother]

Apparently slavery's winning. Unemployment is now up over 10%.

This is the biggest reason why the Dems are gonna have a rough mid-term election.

So what you're advocating is a new New Deal?

[Shady]

So what you're advocating is a new New Deal?

No.

[ToadBrother]

No.

So what other way would you suggest the US government create jobs?

[Shady]

So what other way would you suggest the US government create jobs?

1. Governments don't create jobs. They should create an environment that's favourable to the private sector, which will create real long-term job growth.

2. Obama's already tried a new new deal. And it's failed miserably. He's spent more than FDR could have ever dreamed of spending. Even when you adjust for inflation.

3. I'd look to first stop demonizing the private sector. Start creating some certainty, as oppose to the immense uncertainty he's created with his policies. Address the looming tax increases coming in January 1st. Let the private sector know that their taxes aren't going to go up for at least another couples of years. And I'd definitely consider a payroll tax holiday for the same amount of time. Possibly even a capital gains tax holiday. These were ideas suggested by the Hillary Clinton campaign during the primary elections. They'd get a vast amount of support from both parties.

4. Look to 1919, 1960, 1980. In all three periods, during recessions, tax rates were cut and the economy grew significantly. During the so-called great new deal. 8 years later, unemployment was still 17-18%.

[ToadBrother]

1. Governments don't create jobs. They should create an environment that's favourable to the private sector, which will create real long-term job growth.

That's absurdly wrong. Look at WWII. The government created a helluva lot of manufacturing jobs.

2. Obama's already tried a new new deal. And it's failed miserably. He's spent more than FDR could have ever dreamed of spending. Even when you adjust for inflation.

A lot of that spending came in under Bush. Let me guess, Republicans throwing money out into the wind is okay. Dems doing it is bad.

3. I'd look to first stop demonizing the private sector. Start creating some certainty, as oppose to the immense uncertainty he's created with his policies. Address the looming tax increases coming in January 1st. Let the private sector know that their taxes aren't going to go up for at least another couples of years. And I'd definitely consider a payroll tax holiday for the same amount of time. Possibly even a capital gains tax holiday. These were ideas suggested by the Hillary Clinton campaign during the primary elections. They'd get a vast amount of support from both parties.

Ah, so starve the government of money. That should be interesting.

4. Look to 1919, 1960, 1980. In all three periods, during recessions, tax rates were cut and the economy grew significantly. During the so-called great new deal. 8 years later, unemployment was still 17-18%.

The New Deal was in the 1930s, and abruptly transformed itself into militarization spending, ultimately leading to massive mobilization of industry for both Lend-Lease and for the US's own military buildup. Could you tell me where exactly the unemployment drop came after the New Deal?

Edited October 21, 2010 by ToadBrother

[BubberMiley]

During the so-called great new deal. 8 years later, unemployment was still 17-18%.

Unfortunately, the talking points you’ve been fed are, once again, misleading. It’s been popular among conservatives in recent years to try to discredit the New Deal (something they didn’t dare try when there were still people around who witnessed its enormous success first-hand). It created the American middle class, and therefore there was once no debating its effectiveness.

In 1940 (roughly eight years after its implementation), unemployment was not 18%. It was 14%, but before the New Deal it was nearly 24%. Its implementation therefore led to the fastest drop in the unemployment rate ever. Home ownership skyrocketed, and rapid unionization helped ensure the middle class grew—something conservatives have recently been fighting tooth and nail against.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009010206/forgotten-math-pre-wwii-new-deal-saw-fastest-drop-unemployment-rate-american-h

Edited October 21, 2010 by BubberMiley

[Michael Hardner]

Home ownership skyrocketed, and rapid unionization helped ensure the middle class grew—something conservatives have recently been fighting tooth and nail against.

Also, one should note that this all happened in response to the rise of communism in Russia, and the promise to working people of a better deal. So we can see that certain types of emergencies always pry money out of the hands of those who hold it.

[sharkman]

By the end of 1940 the US economy was also benefiting from WWII production and research.

At any rate, can you imagine living with an unemployment rate of 24%? Bubber, so the unemployment drop from 24% to 14% in 8 years is considered the fastest in history?

[Shady]

It created the American middle class, and therefore there was once no debating its effectiveness.

Complete nonsense. The New Deal was a colossal waste of money. WWII and the decades to follow created the American middle class. The world needed rebuilding after 1945. And America was primarily the only country in the best shape to do it. Revise your history somewhere else.

In 1940 (roughly eight years after its implementation), unemployment was not 18%. It was 14%

In 1938, a year before the economy was impacted in a good way by WWII, unemployment was 18%. That's a fact. Deal with it. So you're precious New Deal dropped the unemployment rate from 24% in 1933, to 18%. A grand total of 6% points. Wow. It worked so well that the rest of the world is copying it today. Oh wait, France, England, and Germany are implementing austerity programs. And China's economic stimulus was composed mostly of tax cuts.

It's funny that everybody looks at the depression in the 30's, but forgets about the depression in 1920-21. No new deal was implemented. Only cuts in interest rates, tax cuts, and goverment spending reductions. And the depression ended in a short period of time. But instead, we're suppose to only focus on the New Deal. A program that did little for real economic growth, and a program that needed a world war to help it get out of.

[Shady]

Ah, so starve the government of money. That should be interesting.

A proponent of a centralized government planned economy would consider it a so-called starving of the government. However, somebody interested in real economic growth would see it as feeding the private sector. The real engine of job creation and economic expansion. The idea that in order for the economy to improve, we need goverment taking more money is absurd. I had no idea so many people in this forum were such economic illiterates.

Not to mention that tax cuts are actually Keynesian economics, without the government middle man distributing it out. All you neo-New Dealers should be big supporters.

[Shady]

Great new mid-term ad related to this discussion!

[BubberMiley]

WWII and the decades to follow created the American middle class.

The decades to follow? Oh, you mean the years where they were enjoying the benefits of expanded unionization and the reform of the financial system that resulted from the New Deal. That prosperity is proof that the reform worked. It's fun to watch you flail when your ideology is challenged by reality.

[BubberMiley]

It's funny that everybody looks at the depression in the 30's, but forgets about the depression in 1920-21. No new deal was implemented. Only cuts in interest rates, tax cuts, and goverment spending reductions. And the depression ended in a short period of time.

But it was soon followed by a far, far greater one. Coolidge and Hoover's economic policies that you speak of led to the depression "everybody looks at." I think everyone looks at it because that depression was so extreme all previous (and subsequent) economic downturns paled in comparison. That's why they call it the "Great Depression."

And only by higher taxes on the wealthy and government initiatives to stimulate the economy did we ever see the end of it.

To sum up, you'd be wise not to point out Coolidge and Hoover's record when defending your ideology. They were a complete disaster on a real scale, not like the "disaster" you try to portray Obama's rescue of the most recent GOP-induced meltdown.

Edited October 22, 2010 by BubberMiley

[bush_cheney2004]

Coolidge and Hoover's economic policies that you speak of led to the depression "everybody looks at." I think everyone looks at it because that depression was so extreme all previous (and subsequent) economic downturns paled in comparison. That's why they call it the "Great Depression."

Everyone knows better than that simple explanation, as the causes were many and varied.

And only by higher taxes on the wealthy and government initiatives to stimulate the economy did we ever see the end of it.

More "we" stuff concerning American presidents...I love it!

Edited October 22, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[BubberMiley]

Everyone knows better than that simple explanation, as the causes were many and varied.

Of course. When Republicans are in office, the reason for the total economic meltdowns are many and varied. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with their policies. And when Democrats are in office, the recovery from those meltdowns is never good enough and any problems are because of their policies. I get it.

More "we" stuff concerning American presidents...I love it!

I was waiting for the reference to wee-wees from the Regina chick. I love them too.

Edited October 22, 2010 by BubberMiley

[bush_cheney2004]

....And when Democrats are in office, the recovery from those meltdowns is never good enough and any problems are because of their policies. I get it.

That's even funnier.....because Democrats are Americans too! Gosh, what will "we" do next?

[BubberMiley]

That's even funnier.....because Democrats are Americans too! Gosh, what will "we" do next?

Heh...she said "wee-wee."

[bush_cheney2004]

Heh...she said "wee-wee."

Just keep your eyes on the Americans and "we" will do just fine. LOL!

[sharkman]

A little over a week to go and Obama is now campaigning full time. The media doesn't seem to mind this, though they did when Bush did some for his 1st mid term. Speaking of Bush, his 1st mid term saw a net rise in seats but with his very low approval rating, Obama has no such future in his cards.

Edited October 25, 2010 by sharkman

[punked]

A little over a week to go and Obama is now campaigning full time. The media doesn't seem to mind this, though they did when Bush did some for his 1st mid term. Speaking of Bush, his 1st mid term saw a net rise in seats but with his very low approval rating, Obama has no such future in his cards.

Just like Reagan right that stupid socialist. Reagan was no Bush that for sure or so Sharkman says.