Jobless Growth Forecast

[Hoss]

It doesn't matter if it's bizzaro or reality, it matters how the voters perceive it, and according to polling, the voters do not perceive positive economic results for the President's actions.

You didn't address the statement though.  But why is that not surprising.   

[Gaspar]

You didn't address the statement though.  But why is that not surprising.  

Hoss,
We are discussing messaging and voter perception.  We are the strongest economy in the world, despite the fact that we now owe more per-capita than even Greece.  Just because we continue to be strong is no excuse for poor economic leadership.  Beyond that, we are discussing PERCEPTION and republicans, democrats and independents perceive little or no economic progress according to polling.  

Now, that may change, and campaign messaging may succeed in changing that, but at this point that message has very weak resonation compared with the strong identification that democrats and independents have with the fairness messages.  

[RecycleMichael]

Beyond that, we are discussing PERCEPTION and republicans, democrats and independents perceive little or no economic progress according to polling.  

I think your perception is flawed on this one Gaspar. This poll came out last week...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/us/politics/economic-gains-give-lift-to-obama-in-poll.html?pagewanted=all

Here is a snippet..."In what could be a turning point, the percentage of people who said they believed the economic outlook was improving is now greater, by double digits, than the percentage of those who said they believed it was getting worse, a reversal from a low point in September, when pessimists outnumbered optimists by more than three to one."

People are becoming more optomistic about the economy in general. Just because you are Debbie Downer doesn't make the rest of us pessimistic.

[Hoss]

I think your perception is flawed on this one Gaspar. This poll came out last week...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/us/politics/economic-gains-give-lift-to-obama-in-poll.html?pagewanted=all

Here is a snippet..."In what could be a turning point, the percentage of people who said they believed the economic outlook was improving is now greater, by double digits, than the percentage of those who said they believed it was getting worse, a reversal from a low point in September, when pessimists outnumbered optimists by more than three to one."

People are becoming more optomistic about the economy in general. Just because you are Debbie Downer doesn't make the rest of us pessimistic.

Facts.

They're a bi***...

[Gaspar]

I think your perception is flawed on this one Gaspar. This poll came out last week...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/us/politics/economic-gains-give-lift-to-obama-in-poll.html?pagewanted=all

Here is a snippet..."In what could be a turning point, the percentage of people who said they believed the economic outlook was improving is now greater, by double digits, than the percentage of those who said they believed it was getting worse, a reversal from a low point in September, when pessimists outnumbered optimists by more than three to one."

People are becoming more optomistic about the economy in general. Just because you are Debbie Downer doesn't make the rest of us pessimistic.

I am curious as to why that is not having an effect on the reception of his message.  It must be tough for him.  Should he listened to the democrat pollsters and push forward with a fairness and class envy mantra or should he continue to tout economic recovery?

I think the above NYT poll is an accurate snapshot, and with the upswing in Wall Street earnings recently, it depicts a very rosy point in time.  The problem is that energy prices may have a profound effect on that perception, and for some strange reason the NYT polling and Democrat polling do not match up. 

I'm not sure what methodology I would trust, are you?

[RecycleMichael]

If I were the President, gaspar would be the last person I would take campaign advice from.

[Conan71]

It's not one or the other, growth or fairness.  Obama is putting the two together, and emphasizing (rightly, IMO) that a fairer playing field widens opportunity and increases chances for growth.  He will make the argument that fairness is integral to recovery, and I think that message is resonating much more strongly than it used to, even a year or two ago.

Romney -- or whomever -- will have a hard time turning that around and arguing the opposite.  Actually, Romney ESPECIALLY will have a hard time arguing the opposite.  There's nothing better than a mouthpiece for the 1% who is actually a card carrying member of the 1%. And, as we've established -- regardless of the actual popularity of the Occupy movement, it has succeeded admirably in putting a specific frame around our political conversation. 

And finally:  you're the only person here using "fairness" as a pseudo-socialist codeword.  When most of the rest of us use the word in conjunction with the economy, it's not about giving free smile to freeloaders, it's about helping people who were and are decent folks through a tough time not of their making.  It's also a recognition that the American Dream is out of whack and has been for maybe decades now, and that that isn't right.  The pushback you're seeing on this board, I think, stems from what seems like your inability to see that fairness isn't about confiscating your hard earned money but is about doing your neighbors a decent turn.

 

What, pray tell, can a president do about "fairness"?  He's already extended unemployment benefits to historical extremes.  We have good welfare programs in place which assist with food, medical care, housing, and a meager stipend for those temporarily- and pathologically downtrodden.

What's been out of whack for the American dream the last few decades?  College drop-outs and people from the most at-risk families are perfectly capable of and are of earning $50K + per year.  What do you propose a president is really capable of doing as a "rising tide to lift all ships" outside of outright confiscation of wealth and redistribution of it?

Along the lines of extended U/E benefits, I'm know of several people who are using this cushion as long as they can to avoid taking a job they really don't care for.  Each of them has said to me they have had offers, one wants to travel a little more first, another didn't want to work in a call center, yet another is worried about having "hot" urinalysis screens, and another is doing really well making cash doing piece-work while still collecting a check from the government that he does not need to get by.

Certainly not everyone who is getting U/E benefits is gaming the system, but if you extend it out too far, you create dependence or you simply show it's an option to not have to get back to work much sooner than if they had not extended it out.  I suspect if they cut the benefit time you'd see unemployment dropping at a much quicker rate.

[Conan71]

Yes, in bizzaro-world, the President has handled the economy poorly. This, despite the fact that we're doing better than most other major economies.

His results don't seem to mirror that of two other presidents who came in during difficult economic times: Reagan & Bush II.

FWIW, I predict high fuel prices will have crushed any substantive gains if they persist well through the summer.

[we vs us]

I am curious as to why that is not having an effect on the reception of his message.  It must be tough for him.  Should he listened to the democrat pollsters and push forward with a fairness and class envy mantra or should he continue to tout economic recovery?

He will do both because in his mind and the mind of a good portion of the electorate, fairness and recovery are intertwined.  

[Conan71]

He will do both because in his mind and the mind of a good portion of the electorate, fairness and recovery are intertwined.  

Yet in reality, the two are more mutually-exclusive than you think.  Generally "fairness" issues like the Affordable Healthcare Act, the threat of higher taxes, and more regulation means companies are a whole lot more unsure/indifferent about hiring.  That's not spin, that's reality in the business world.  Instead of attacking unemployment as his first mode of business, President Obama spent a year and a half still campaigning against Bush policies and pushing healthcare reform.

[Gaspar]

His results don't seem to mirror that of two other presidents who came in during difficult economic times: Reagan & Bush II.

FWIW, I predict high fuel prices will have crushed any substantive gains if they persist well through the summer.

Unless there is a way to change the subject or to cast blame elsewhere. That's why I think that the fairness mantra and a cultivated support from the OWS crowd has the most promice.  If executed correctly the president may be able to use the 1% hobgoblin as his new Bush.  If he can create a narrative where all of his efforts to promote economic recovery failed because of a fortunate few not paying their fair share, and the continued actions of banksters then he may be able to charm the snake again.

It would be an amazing trick, but I think it just might work.  The only things that Republicans can offer is the theoretical promise of economic recovery.  They are ill-equipped to do battle against a class war, because independents view them as members and/or collaborators with the upper-class. . .and besides, they would be unwise to take on the fairness mantle anyway.  Romney dipped his foot in the pool the other day when he mentioned "The 1%" and it resulted in ridicule and face-palm.

It's tough to beat an incumbent president, and impossible to beat one if he has a majority support from independents.  At this point, independents are more receptive to messages of economic equality then they are to someone telling them that the economy has recovered. . .especially when they are still looking for a job!  Even if we use the imaginary 9% unemployment number, if president Obama can pull that 9% of all independents into his corner by telling them "it's not your fault" rather than "Why don't you have a job?" then he has won the election (it is assumed he will get at least 40% of the independent vote anyway).

[Conan71]

Unless there is a way to change the subject or to cast blame elsewhere. That's why I think that the fairness mantra and a cultivated support from the OWS crowd has the most promice.  If executed correctly the president may be able to use the 1% hobgoblin as his new Bush.  If he can create a narrative where all of his efforts to promote economic recovery failed because of a fortunate few not paying their fair share, and the continued actions of banksters then he may be able to charm the snake again.

It would be an amazing trick, but I think it just might work.  The only things that Republicans can offer is the theoretical promise of economic recovery.  They are ill-equipped to do battle against a class war, because independents view them as members and/or collaborators with the upper-class. . .and besides, they would be unwise to take on the fairness mantle anyway.  Romney dipped his foot in the pool the other day when he mentioned "The 1%" and it resulted in ridicule and face-palm.

It's tough to beat an incumbent president, and impossible to beat one if he has a majority support from independents.  At this point, independents are more receptive to messages of economic equality then they are to someone telling them that the economy has recovered. . .especially when they are still looking for a job!  Even if we use the imaginary 9% unemployment number, if president Obama can pull that 9% of all independents into his corner by telling them "it's not your fault" rather than "Why don't you have a job?" then he has won the election (it is assumed he will get at least 40% of the independent vote anyway).

He isn't going to pull this newly-minted independent into his corner

[we vs us]

His results don't seem to mirror that of two other presidents who came in during difficult economic times: Reagan & Bush II.

"This Time Is Different" doesn't simply explain what went wrong in our most recent crisis. The book also provides a roadmap of how things are likely to pan out in the years to come. Real-estate bubbles invariably give way to banking crises. Losses in the financial sector are followed by the sharp deterioration in government finances amid bailouts and decreased tax revenue. The decline in economic output that follows the bust is sharp, but the recovery tends to be slow and protracted. The situation is especially dire when the crisis is geographically widespread.

WSJ book review of "This Time is Different," by Reinhart and Rogoff, a survey of 800+ years of economic cycles.

[we vs us]

Yet in reality, the two are more mutually-exclusive than you think.  Generally "fairness" issues like the Affordable Healthcare Act, the threat of higher taxes, and more regulation means companies are a whole lot more unsure/indifferent about hiring.  That's not spin, that's reality in the business world.  Instead of attacking unemployment as his first mode of business, President Obama spent a year and a half still campaigning against Bush policies and pushing healthcare reform.

I agree that HCR was done out of order, but then I think that one of Obama's biggest failings was his initial underestimation of the severity of the recession.  I'm not sure he initially felt as much urgency as he should've.  The composition and size of ARRA also indicates that, as well.

We're probably never going to agree on how best to apply taxes and regulation, especially in the current environment.  I still think that businesses not hiring has MUCH more to do with a lack of demand than with regulation or higher taxes.  It's not fear that's keeping businesses in check, it's that no one's buying to support further investment.  But even that's beginning to be untrue.  My industry and your industry both are seeing all kinds of positive indicators.  Pent up demand and all that.  And it's slowly helping the employment numbers.

[we vs us]

He isn't going to pull this newly-minted independent into his corner

You're in a tight spot, then.  You get two viable options to influence the national direction, and a myriad of ways to waste your vote.  You can choose whoever the GOP person is, Obama, or the green party or the libertarians or the Communist party or yadda yadda yadda.  Since we're not a parliamentary system, being an indy and not affiliated just diminishes your ability to influence things.