If you had to choose Obama or Romney

[j r]

Listening to some of Bill Clinton's speech the other night reminded me of how bad things have become. I'm not the biggest fan of Bubba, but at least he says something substantive. I disagreed with a lot of the policy elements of his speech, but at least he had something to disagree with. Politics right now, is almost completely unattached from actual policy. Try to figure out what Romney or Obama are actually proposing to do. They both just talk some mindless isht about "what direction the country is going."

If a Republican had proposed Obamacare, you would have never seen the level of outrage that you saw on the right. I happen to think that nationalized health care is a bad idea, but let's face it, most people love the idea. If this were a Republican plan, there would have been a little bit of pushback, like W got with Medaicare Part D, but most people would have fallen in line. That's why you have Romney and Ryan defending Medicare right now, even though Medicare is going broke faster than social security.

Likewise, what happened to all the Democrats who were so gung ho about criticizing Bush's expansion of executive power on the foreign policy front and the expansion of the national security state? What happened to all the Democrats who were so concerned with civil liberties? There's really just a handful of progressives left still talking about these things now that they're guy is in charge.

It's all a big signaling game. Democrats try to appeal to minorities and enlightened white folk, who think that big business and rich people are ruining the world. And Republicans try appeal to old white people who think that big government and brown people are ruining the world. Of course big business and big government are one in the same. Likewise, the Democrats and the Republicans are on opposites sides the way that the Red Sox and the Yankees are on opposite sides. Sure, they'd both like to win the World Series, but at the end of the day it's just a game played for the amusement of spectators.

 

[Samseau]

The reason for the drop in the unemployment rate: labor force participation dropped to 63.5%, down from 63.7%.

h/t: zerohedge

The depression continues

 

[kosko]

Why do we use the goofy unemployment numbers. If almost half of your eligible workforce has no work......... weeeelp.

When will Washington DC admit America is in a depression.

Obama will have too if he gets a 2nd term. You will have to re-brand the "recession", "Double dip", "Great recession", into something else. People are getting to wise to keep thinking this is some short systematic mess. Most people know that recessions usually only last 2-3 years and don't pan out over 3 Presidential terms. This mess started to spill over in 2007, and now going into a 3rd presidential term things are still in the dumps.

 

[Vicious]

I wish the GOP would be tougher on itself when picking candidates. Instead it's trying to discern what candidate has the biggest superficial appeal to the general public. While that might seem like a good idea it also makes sure their pick is bland and lacking character.

At the same time Obama can't run again and claim to be the man he was in the last election.

 

[ManAbout]

I wasn't too impressed with Obama's speech. The first half was flat. It's only towards the end that he actually got the crowd going and injected some enthusiasm into it. Bill Clinton was enjoying himself on stage, both Obama and Romney were not. If i hadn't watched Bubba's speech the previous night, I might have rated Obama higher.

 

[NYJ]

The reason for the drop in the unemployment rate: labor force participation dropped to 63.5%, down from 63.7%.

h/t: zerohedge

The depression continues

And that level is the lowest in 30 years.

I've read somewhere that there may have been near 0 jobs added in August. Using an approximation of the amount of jobs new business may have added, the labor department added 87k into the total of 96K

 

[speakeasy]

Unless we are talking about direct government hiring there is pretty little any president can do to create jobs. These are the only options I can imagine at the White House's disposal:

1) Expand government hiring either by expanding the number of bureaucrats, military, teachers, cops or public infrastructure programs. Many of these jobs of course don't create any actual wealth and could be a drag on the economy with expensive pensions. They will increase government spending. Plus it's not a viable solution to lowering unemployment on a mass scale as most people work for medium sized businesses.

2) Save jobs by intervening in industries that employ a lot of people such as the auto industry. Creating incentives for companies to keep jobs here. This doesn't create jobs though, just helps us hang on to what we have. Could also be massively expensive if we are bailing out corporations.

3) Give some sort of tax incentives to "job creators" so that they will expand businesses and ramp up employment. Problem here is that businesses can only hire if there is increasing demand for their services and they can't squeeze anymore productivity out of their current employees. If there is no demand in the economy I don't see it making much difference. Perhaps a better plan would be waving income tax for all NEW businesses that hire people for a set period of time.

Beyond this I can't imagine what other options there are. Some of these have already been tried, and we've had the Bush tax cuts for a decade now and they haven't produced jobs. Presidents need to stop making empty promises about how many jobs their policies will create. The figures they throw out are best case scenarios if all circumstances go just right and there is no opposition in Congress. And never do these figures account for how much debt these plans add by government spending or lost revenue from tax cuts. I know everyone wants to hear about how many millions of jobs a candidate's plans will create but we have to be realistic at the same time. At the end of the day policy is only one part of why an economy class can fail. All the policies may be right but I cannot undo global factors, such as extremely cheap labor abroad.

 

[dragnet]

If a Republican had proposed Obamacare, you would have never seen the level of outrage that you saw on the right.

Funny you should say this...because Obamacare is a right-wing, Republican plan through-and-through, from the ground up.

I think it's worth it to quickly review the history of the individual mandate. Originally, American liberals favored a single payer system and pushed aggressively for it. Realizing the need for expanded coverage---but wary of gov't overreach---conservatives decided the employer mandate would be a better fit. Eventually, mainstream liberals came around to the idea of the employer mandate—and then conservatives moved to favor the individual mandate. In the 90s, the healthcare platforms of Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole--during the 1996 presidential campaign--contained an individual mandate for implementation at the federal level. The individual mandate has always been seen as a conservative idea…until Obama decided to employ it when the idea was promptly denounced as socialism. Right-wing bellyaching about Obamacare is dishonest to the core. Obama's real mistake has been in not selling this core truth effectively.

 

[soup]

both parties are just so bad

Saying both parties are so bad may seem like an independent minded sentiment, but it helps the Republican party. The more people loose faith in government, the more the Republican party wins the framing war.

Even though both parties may seem very similar, it's impossible to take a neutral position.

I titled this thread with an "If you had to", but the truth is that you are making a choice even if you don't want to.

 

[ElJefe]

Unless we are talking about direct government hiring there is pretty little any president can do to create jobs. These are the only options I can imagine at the White House's disposal:

1) Expand government hiring either by expanding the number of bureaucrats, military, teachers, cops or public infrastructure programs. Many of these jobs of course don't create any actual wealth and could be a drag on the economy with expensive pensions. They will increase government spending. Plus it's not a viable solution to lowering unemployment on a mass scale as most people work for medium sized businesses.

2) Save jobs by intervening in industries that employ a lot of people such as the auto industry. Creating incentives for companies to keep jobs here. This doesn't create jobs though, just helps us hang on to what we have. Could also be massively expensive if we are bailing out corporations.

3) Give some sort of tax incentives to "job creators" so that they will expand businesses and ramp up employment. Problem here is that businesses can only hire if there is increasing demand for their services and they can't squeeze anymore productivity out of their current employees. If there is no demand in the economy I don't see it making much difference. Perhaps a better plan would be waving income tax for all NEW businesses that hire people for a set period of time.

Beyond this I can't imagine what other options there are. Some of these have already been tried, and we've had the Bush tax cuts for a decade now and they haven't produced jobs. Presidents need to stop making empty promises about how many jobs their policies will create. The figures they throw out are best case scenarios if all circumstances go just right and there is no opposition in Congress. And never do these figures account for how much debt these plans add by government spending or lost revenue from tax cuts. I know everyone wants to hear about how many millions of jobs a candidate's plans will create but we have to be realistic at the same time. At the end of the day policy is only one part of why an economy class can fail. All the policies may be right but I cannot undo global factors, such as extremely cheap labor abroad.

Ricardian Equivalence my friend.

Differing economic crises have different reasons. My humble view is this one is no longer the financial crisis.

Now it's the spluttering engine-won't-get-started-crisis combined with and low-skilled labor over-supply crisis.

 

[Deluge]

The 32% vote for Romney is really surprising considering how far right a lot of the "Manosphere" appears to be. The extreme far right crowd makes up for a hell of a lot less than all the noise coming from Roissy, (the now defunct) In Mala Fide, human biodiversity blogs and all their comment sections would indicate.

 

[Capitán Peligroso]

Quick update... Nate Silver now has Obama at almost a 4-1 favorite. Obama never was such a strong favorite over McCain, even at the end when it was pretty clear he was going to win.

 

[Tex Pro]

The debates are what is going to determine who will win, IMHO.

Hopefully, Romney can perform well in the debates and flood the swing states with ads from now until the election.

The economy can't afford to have Obama at the helm for another 4 years.

 

[Tex Pro]

The 32% vote for Romney is really surprising considering how far right a lot of the "Manosphere" appears to be. The extreme far right crowd makes up for a hell of a lot less than all the noise coming from Roissy, (the now defunct) In Mala Fide, human biodiversity blogs and all their comment sections would indicate.

This forum leans a bit left. If you put this poll up at Roissy's blog, the vote would favor Romney.

 

[speakeasy]

The 32% vote for Romney is really surprising considering how far right a lot of the "Manosphere" appears to be. The extreme far right crowd makes up for a hell of a lot less than all the noise coming from Roissy, (the now defunct) In Mala Fide, human biodiversity blogs and all their comment sections would indicate.

This forum leans a bit left. If you put this poll up at Roissy's blog, the vote would favor Romney.

Most those HBD alt-right guys in the manosphere seem to be big fans of Ron Paul. I don't think they are thrilled with Romney.

 

[Belize King]

I dont think the forum is left-leaning. We all dislike our two choices and if you had Ron Paul as a third option, he would pull alot of votes. We realize Romney is a dickhead. He is the chosen on in the party which is pretty sad. You looked at all the the runners for the nomination and I wouldnt want to jump on board with any of them except Ron Paul but Paul is so out there he isn't really a Republican. Technically Paul is a true Republican but thats not the point.

I'd say the forum isn't drinking the Obama cool-aid but does give him little props on the descent job he has done.

 

[Tex Pro]

I dont think the forum is left-leaning. We all dislike our two choices and if you had Ron Paul as a third option, he would pull alot of votes. We realize Romney is a dickhead. He is the chosen on in the party which is pretty sad. You looked at all the the runners for the nomination and I wouldnt want to jump on board with any of them except Ron Paul but Paul is so out there he isn't really a Republican. Technically Paul is a true Republican but thats not the point.

I'd say the forum isn't drinking the Obama cool-aid but does give him little props on the descent job he has done.

I think this forum is a bit left leaning. Just read the threads.

I like Ron Paul (he is also from Texas), but the guy has no chance of ever getting the Republican nomination.

As to you last point, the descent job Obama has done? The only states that even have recovering economies are Republican states like Texas (where 1/3 of all new jobs were created).

My beef with Obama is he hasn't done enough for the economy. Plain and simple. He needs to go for that reason and that reason alone.

 

[Sentrix]

I think this forum is a bit left leaning. Just read the threads.

I'm a little surprised by this, given that we're all men.
I've found the manosphere to be right-leaning, as am I.

Edit: Someone above me posted the same thing. I wouldn't say far-right like he did, though. The problem with liberals is that to them, there is no standard right. Everything they may not agree with is "far right".

 

[Roustabout]

If you can access this article, check it out: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304432704577349860656569348.html

Compelling evidence, at least to me, that lower tax rates lead to greater economic prosperity. Essentially, the authors provide statistical evidence that U.S. states without a state income tax, such as Tennessee and Florida, to name two, have grown faster and prospered more so economically than higher tax states. The authors wrote the article in response to Obama's plan to raise income tax rates on the wealthy and on investment income as an effort to right the U.S.'s sinking economic ship.

 

[speakeasy]

I think this forum is a bit left leaning. Just read the threads.

I'm a little surprised by this, given that we're all men.
I've found the manosphere to be right-leaning, as am I.

Edit: Someone above me posted the same thing. I wouldn't say far-right like he did, though. The problem with liberals is that to them, there is no standard right. Everything they may not agree with is "far right".

This is a very International forum. I suspect many of the voters are not American. Obama would definitely be preferred over Romney in a world poll. Also, Obama would be considered center right by global standards. Only in America would you have crackpots calling him a socialist.