Jobless Growth Forecast

[Townsend]

Shouldn't you measure trending?

[nathanm]

The Republican Study Committee?

I can imagine the meeting that produced that graph. It must have been 14 young republicans who don't grasp the concept of retirement or child labor laws. If you take out all the kids and all the retirees, you get an expected labor force participation rate lower than it actually is. Apparently there are still 16 year olds out there with jobs, despite what the media has been saying. Either that or half of all Social Security recipients also have jobs.

[Hoss]

Shouldn't you measure trending?

Plus, as is the case EVERY January, I'm guessing some of that little UE spike is from seasonal workers being let go.

[Conan71]

Careful you guys don't end up with a group nosebleed from tripping all over that pesky graph.

[Townsend]

Careful you guys don't end up with a group nosebleed from tripping all over that pesky graph.

Funny when you guys say stuff like that.

[Conan71]

Funny when you guys say stuff like that.

I heard you titter.

[Gaspar]

Very important that Democrats get their narrative correct for this election.  The president and many others have been talking about "Jobs" and pushing the "America is back" message.  That's the wrong direction for them.  It puts them in a very weak position.

The concept of middle class expansion and "fairness" is still by far the strongest position they could possibly take.  They need to say as far away from discussions of economic recovery, growth, and progress as possible.

It will be a big mistake for Democrats if they stray away from the "fairness" theme.  The president simply has no other ammo that resonates with his constituency.   The fairness thing also offers the best defense against the Republicans who can successfully mount an attack on economic issues but have very little interest in pandering to the more emotional issues.

The next few months will be very interesting because energy costs, if not managed, are going to start to erode the small economic gains we have experienced.   I think if the president is wise, he will become more OWS-like in his message and abandon any real economic message.





 

[Townsend]

Very important that Democrats get their narrative correct for this election.  

Or they could stay low and allow the republicans to bury themselves.

Problem for us is our state would get buried with them.

[dbacks fan]

The next few months will be very interesting because energy costs, if not managed, are going to start to erode the small economic gains we have experienced.   I think if the president is wise, he will become more OWS-like in his message and abandon any real economic message.

But I thought the message was that higher gas prices were a sure sign the economy has recovered and that unemployment was low?

[Townsend]

But I thought the message was that higher gas prices were a sure sign the economy has recovered and that unemployment was low?

That floating on Arizona winds these days?

[dbacks fan]

No, just comments from 'talking heads' that this is the belief of those in charge in DC.

[Townsend]

No, just comments from 'talking heads' that this is the belief of those in charge in DC.

Not Iran?

[dbacks fan]

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a potential presidential contender, accused the Obama administration Wednesday of favoring a run-up in gas prices to prod consumers to buy more fuel-efficient cars.
Barbour cited 2008 comments from Steven Chu, now President Barack Obama's energy secretary, that a gradual increase in gasoline taxes could coax consumers into dumping their gas-guzzlers and finding homes closer to where they work. Chu, then a Nobel Prize-winning professor, argued that higher costs per gallon could force investments in alternative fuels and spur cleaner energy sources.
"This administration's policies have been designed to drive up the cost of energy in the name of reducing pollution, in the name of making very expensive alternative fuels more economically competitive," Barbour said during a U.S. Chamber of Commerce breakfast across the street from the White House.

http://midwestdemocracy.com/articles/barbour-says-obama-cheers-for-higher-gas-prices/

[Townsend]

http://midwestdemocracy.com/articles/barbour-says-obama-cheers-for-higher-gas-prices/

Ah, anti-obama-ites are saying that.

Story's a bit strange.  Was Barbour still thinking of running that late in 2011?

[Gaspar]

http://midwestdemocracy.com/articles/barbour-says-obama-cheers-for-higher-gas-prices/

I don't think it's intensional.  That would indicate leadership.  It's simply the chaotic result of continued uncertainty and instability nurtured by a lack of leadership.  More and more intensions with fewer and fewer results.

As I said above, I think people have caught on for the most part, and any discussion of results if futile, so the president will be well served to turn all of his energies toward a conversation about fairness.

There is not a segment of the American public that he has helped to become more independent or stable or successful.  His strongest message metrics will be seen in an agenda of fairness.  He can't push the notion of prosperity and independence so he is relegated to a platform of equal missery and simple survival, where the 99% can live out their years in the new society free of the evils of ambition or the burdons of individual responsibility.

Now we all know that that's a grand exaggeration, but that is the message that will resonate with the most dominance to his constituents.  Does anyone see any strength in pushing a different narrative?