It’s time to admit that Obama’s economic policies have been abject failures. Besides having the official unemployment numbers remain above 8% we have other problems. According to the Huffington Post, definitely liberal and Obama supportive, fifty percent of recent college grads are either unemployed or underemployed.
In Weak Job Market, One In Two College Graduates Are Jobless Or Underemployed
There are no definitive statistics for underemployment but the Department of Labor puts it between 14 and 15%. Other reliable sources such as Gallup show it holding stubbornly above 17%. U.S. November Underemployment Up From a Year Ago

Since 1940 there have been only six years when unemployment was higher than 8% - three of those years were the first three years of the Obama administration. 2012 will clearly be another year with unemployment remaining above 8%. Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population, 1941 to date

We have additional problems: the exploding national debt, the downgrading of our credit rating, the looming expiration of the Bush tax cuts and, of course, the projected impact of Obama Care. Continuing on this same path is a formula for economic collapse. It’s time for a change.

the best one I heard in an attempt to rationalize the situation the country is in was on the NBC evening news tonight when Lester Holt asked the question....."is it possible these numbers represent the new norm?".....

The person he was asking, who was presenting the situation as dire, nothing like it since the 40's, etc......and Lester the appointed lead scout with a trial balloon got shot down.

How utterly ridiculous and another display of desperation.

At some point even the main stream media will have to acknowledge they are not fooling anybody and their credibility is almost non existent with a growing number of we the people.

Add to the above Obama's comments this afternoon that things are tough...we are not where we want to be yet...it is going to take longer than we thought...

btk

Originally Posted by BBQMan

It’s time to admit that Obama’s economic policies have been abject failures. Besides having the official unemployment numbers remain above 8% we have other problems. According to the Huffington Post, definitely liberal and Obama supportive, fifty percent of recent college grads are either unemployed or underemployed.
In Weak Job Market, One In Two College Graduates Are Jobless Or Underemployed
There are no definitive statistics for underemployment but the Department of Labor puts it between 14 and 15%. Other reliable sources such as Gallup show it holding stubbornly above 17%. U.S. November Underemployment Up From a Year Ago

Since 1940 there have been only six years when unemployment was higher than 8% - three of those years were the first three years of the Obama administration. 2012 will clearly be another year with unemployment remaining above 8%. Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population, 1941 to date

We have additional problems: the exploding national debt, the downgrading of our credit rating, the looming expiration of the Bush tax cuts and, of course, the projected impact of Obama Care. Continuing on this same path is a formula for economic collapse. It’s time for a change.

And, what does Romney offer? Have not really heard much of anything about what his plan is.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

And, what does Romney offer? Have not really heard much of anything about what his plan is.

Romney's plan is more tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, (the job creators), and raising taxes and cutting programs for everybody else. A Romney presidency would be great unless you're poor, Mexican, gay, a woman or a dog.

Originally Posted by janmcn

Romney's plan is more tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, (the job creators), and raising taxes and cutting programs for everybody else. A Romney presidency would be great unless you're poor, Mexican, gay, a woman or a dog.

Not sure if Romney deserves the dog bit. I do feel sorry for his pooch when he strapped it to the roof. Mitt Romney dog incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Romney does seem to be someone who thinks outside the box but does this with little compassion. As some of his work with Bain Capital, his leadership in his small Mormon group (the Boston stake), and the dog on the roof incident show. The Dark Side of Mitt Romney | Politics | Vanity Fair

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Not sure if Romney deserves the dog bit. I do feel sorry for his pooch when he strapped it to the roof. Mitt Romney dog incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Romney does seem to be someone who thinks outside the box but does this with little compassion. As some of his work with Bain Capital, his leadership in his small Mormon group, and the dog on the roof incident show.

taltarzac - your comment - and the negative comments of others - has made me wonder what you think mitt romney SHOULD HAVE DONE in his position with Bain Capital? was his job to go out and make money for investors? did he do his job? did he do his job well? did he save some businesses? did he have to shutter some businesses rather than let them continue to fail and accrue debt that could never be repaid? did he enable the creation of some brand new businesses? what on earth was he supposed to be doing?

i worked in the private sector for 20 years and EVERY day was spent insuring that our personal efforts resulted in corporate profit rather than loss. it worked well for all of us in the company and for the investors/shareholders. wasn't that what romney was supposed to be doing?

if he was doing what he was supposed to be doing - why is the man being SO berated for doing his job and doing it well?

and lastly - re mitt not having compassion...what does he need compassion for? should he allow compassion - his or anyone else's - to modify an action if that modification will nullify or diminish the effectiveness of the action? in all my years of being an employee - i never met a successful individual who displayed true compassion - i found that in my church and the hospital!

While Lester Holt got shot down in raising the idea of a "new norm" relative to the level of unemployment, I think there is an argument that higher unemployment, lower economic growth and a greater inability of government action to effect these measures is not only possible but already underway.

I say that for a couple reasons...

• Rapidly increasing American productivity (man hours to produce a unit of production) continues to grow faster than the demand for goods, even from an increasing population. By definition, that means higher unemployment.

• In the last ten years or so, the stimulative action taken by the government hasn't worked as it had for decades before. "Supply side economics" (the "trickle down" effect) hasn't worked as it had in the past.
  

  As an example, in the post WWII period when the U.S. savings rate was near or at zero, any reduction in taxes or manipulation of the interest rate had an almost immediate effect on consumer confidence and demand, resulting in increased production and increased employment. Beginning in the 1990's the U.S. savings rate has edged upwards from zero to about 4% where it is now. And productivity continues to improve faster than population growth, as noted above.
  
  The effect began to be demonstrated with the several "Bush tax cuts". They were intended to quickly increase economic activity and employment, but each successive cut had increasingly tepid results. The ineffectiveness of government intervention peaked with the 2008 tax rebates. All that happened with that money was that the savings rate increased almost immediately. Consumers used their newfound tax rebates to either pay off debt or add to their savings or investments. They did not do what the government intended and expected--go out an spend the money with the result of a quick increase in economic activity and employment.

It would appear that for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is an erosion in confidence in the government's ability to manage the economy, the conduct of consumers has changed to a "new norm". They are less confident in their political leaders and far less certain as to the continued strength of the U.S. economy and our ability to compete internationally.

The result continues to be for consumers to increase saving or investment in lieu of increased spending. Combined with our increased productivity, increased unemployment or under-employment is the result. Until something in the equation I've described changes, that isn't likely to change.

The government is running out of tools to use to stimulate economic activity. With the rates on U.S. Treasury bills at only 1.5%, where they closed yesterday, there is little more that the Fed can do in the area of manipulating interest rates. They have only a couple more tools to use--increasing the money supply ("economic easing") or stimulating the economy with increased government spending and employment. Watch and listen carefully for both to begin to enter the political discussion.

Whether the current 8% unemployment rate is the new "norm" is certainly in question. But it's almost certain that normal unemployment won't return to the 3-4% level anytime in the forseeable future.

how about a new approach?
Have Obama start a program called FREE LOADER TERMINATION PROGRAM (FLTP) designed to go after the so called poor, illegals, gays and who ever else was previously listed..... that are collecting benefits and not qualified to do so. Who are also by the way part of the non tax paying burden here in the USA.

Many of us who have worked hard our entire life and contributed our share of taxation and social contributions to the government are more than weary of listening to too many who continue to want the government to pay people who do not or have not or do not intend to work or pay one dime towards the future of the government they are free loading off of????

Include in the free loader termination program all illegals who have also not contributed one dime.

I would like to hear from the supporters of the free loader recipients why it is OK for more than half the population to not have to pay taxes.

And when you are done struggling with that lark, how about a discussion of why it is OK for almost half the US and foreign companies to not pay taxes.

Since no previous POTUS has ever gone after these obvious huge tax dodger, free loader targets and since Obama is the care taker of business as usual and in fact adding more free loader programs, we can expect nothing from the current administration.

So like him or not, Romney is the only hope, a non Washington insider who doesn't owe anything to the cronies inside the business as usual system.....just maybe he will go after the real problem here in America and that is purge the free loader constituency and their political supporters.

I wouldn't guess there are too many federal free loaders resident in TV. I would further guess most are like me who paid their share and are quite happy to get what they paid into back now in benefits....while the money last that is.

Really quite disgusted by the continuing and growing support the free loader society concept.

btk

Originally Posted by billethkid

how about a new approach?
Have Obama start a program called FREE LOADER TERMINATION PROGRAM (FLTP) designed to go after the so called poor, illegals, gays and who ever else was previously listed..... that are collecting benefits and not qualified to do so. Who are also by the way part of the non tax paying burden here in the USA.

Many of us who have worked hard our entire life and contributed our share of taxation and social contributions to the government are more than weary of listening to too many who continue to want the government to pay people who do not or have not or do not intend to work or pay one dime towards the future of the government they are free loading off of????

Include in the free loader termination program all illegals who have also not contributed one dime.

I would like to hear from the supporters of the free loader recipients why it is OK for more than half the population to not have to pay taxes.

And when you are done struggling with that lark, how about a discussion of why it is OK for almost half the US and foreign companies to not pay taxes.

Since no previous POTUS has ever gone after these obvious huge tax dodger, free loader targets and since Obama is the care taker of business as usual and in fact adding more free loader programs, we can expect nothing from the current administration.

So like him or not, Romney is the only hope, a non Washington insider who doesn't owe anything to the cronies inside the business as usual system.....just maybe he will go after the real problem here in America and that is purge the free loader constituency and their political supporters.

I wouldn't guess there are too many federal free loaders resident in TV. I would further guess most are like me who paid their share and are quite happy to get what they paid into back now in benefits....while the money last that is.

Really quite disgusted by the continuing and growing support the free loader society concept.

btk

Do you honestly think that Romney won't owe anything to the billionaires that are financing his election? And do you include Romney is that list of people that pay no income taxes? Why won't he release tax returns for the past ten years?

I guess I don't really care about the onsey twosey millionaires and billionaires.....I am only interested in the almost half of the American population and corporations that pay NO TAXES....and those who did not pay into the system and are free loading. That is where the problem is.

btk

Originally Posted by billethkid

...I would like to hear from the supporters of the free loader recipients why it is OK for more than half the population to not have to pay taxes...

It isn't OK, but there's no political will to change it. I guess what I mean by "political will", is the willingness to compromise to correct the tax code so that everyone pays a fair share of taxes.

The Democrats don't want to increase taxes on the lower income classes, their political base. The Republicans won't consider increasing taxes on the wealthy or modifying tax breaks and loopholes for corporations. The stalemate continues even if total tax revenues resulting from such changes to the tax code aren't increased. The most frequent criticism is that those actions would result in "redistribution of wealth". Both sides are saying "my way of the highway".

It seems to me there will be only one of two possible outcomes. Either the electorate gets so upset with Congress over the result of their ideological bickering and inaction and replaces them...or Congress continues to do nothing and our creditors demand changes, such as is happening in Greece and Spain right now.

By the way, in case you haven't noticed, the experts who have evaluated the new Greek socialist government's refusal to consider the demands of the EU and is threatening to leave the EU and default on their billions in loans have said that the result of those actions (or inactions) will be a reduction in the average income of Greek families by 55%, dramatically increased unemployment, and an implosion of both the Greek banking system as well as the possibility that the resulting economic damage would create widespread bank failures both in the EU as well as possibly in the U.S.

Originally Posted by billethkid

I guess I don't really care about the onsey twosey millionaires and billionaires.....I am only interested in the almost half of the American population and corporations that pay NO TAXES....and those who did not pay into the system and are free loading. That is where the problem is.

btk

I do not recall hearing Mitt Romney stating he will have ALL Americans paying a certain percentage of their gross income in an income tax. Isn't that what you are talking about? A certain percent of gross income without any deductions allowed for mortgage interest, child credit, education, charitable deductions, etc?

What is Romney's stand on that particular issue?

Originally Posted by buggyone

I do not recall hearing Mitt Romney stating he will have ALL Americans paying a certain percentage of their gross income in an income tax. Isn't that what you are talking about? A certain percent of gross income without any deductions allowed for mortgage interest, child credit, education, charitable deductions, etc?

What is Romney's stand on that particular issue?

You can find Romney's economic plan here - Jobs and Economic Growth | Mitt Romney for President

If you need more detail than is visible on the summaries, there is a 160 page pdf file as well.

Originally Posted by BBQMan

You can find Romney's economic plan here - Jobs and Economic Growth | Mitt Romney for President

If you need more detail than is visible on the summaries, there is a 160 page pdf file as well.

How does that ensure that the 49 percent that do not pay taxes now will be paying taxes under his plan?