I have very little confidence that 4 more years of Obama will put the DEMs in the public's favorable graces.

The Clinton's are their own brand at this point.

If things keep going down the shitter, it actually only strengthens their brand politically, and increases the likelihood Hillary could be President.

Clinton nostalgia in this country has only grown since for many people (how bizarre is this) it represents the last time America was booming and the economy was expanding (not the jobless recovery type expansion we had all last decade).

I could quite easily see them (Bill and Hillary are a team at this point) campaigning on the idea that you need to put them back in charge to get the country back to where it was when they were last in charge.

I am not taking into account any of the variables that led to the prosperity then, but from a strictly political point of view it is a very powerful argument and would be tough to really assaile running against them.

The Clinton brand has staked out a middle ground centerist type brand. Hillary will run on Obama having veered too far left, the Republicans are too far to the right, and that the Clinton brand of centerist governance is what will bring America back to prosperity.

I can just see it now, and I am sure the wheels are in motion for her to take the next 2 years off to recharge the batteries to gear up for a 2016 run. She is not the pariah she was 4 years ago (losing to Obama humbled her tremendously in the eyes of public opinion). her favorables are really really high, and Bill's are through the roof. She will only be 68 during the next campaign, so while on the outside bounds age wise it isn't the deal breaker it would be if she was in her 70's.

Elizabeth Warren delivered a rousing speech that replaced "yes we can" with "no you can't". To sum up: your life sucks, there's nothing you can do about it, so you need the govt.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Things could be looking up for the job market.

Paycheck processing firm ADP said private companies added 201,000 jobs last month, up from 173,000 in July.
That was much better than the 143,000 jobs economists surveyed by Briefing.com were expecting.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/06/news/economy/adp-jobless-claims/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

The jobs reports I think the next 2 months are literally going to determine if BHO gets re-elected. If that number holds after revision then it will be a boon to him at a time when he is basing his re-election on the idea that it is getting better and to stay the course with him.

Willard only needs one of these to be shitty and the presidency is his now that the campaign is entering the home stretch. Since it is recent, it will have an outsized effect on people's perception of how things are going as they head to the ballot box.

173k is still shitty. Is that even enough to keep pace with the growing work force?

The inconvenient truth is the foundation for a good economy is there...the stock market recovered, corporate profits recovered, but job growth stalled. Why? Mainly because of the fiscal and regulatory policies of this admnistration. We don't need more stimulus, we need Obama and his anti-business agenda gone.

And Warren (or was it Clinton) mentioned last night there are 3 million job postings but no qualified workers to fill them. I have heard similar anecdotes, but it beges the question HOW are we educating are children if we have millions of college grads out of work and jobs that can't be filled. I'd be willing to bet many of those 3 million jobs needs a skill and not a degree in art history.

Why? Mainly because of the fiscal and regulatory policies of this admnistration

Not really. It makes a convenient scape goat, but pretty much all last decade we saw pretty meager job growth even as corporate profits and the market soared.

The term "jobless recovery" was even coined because of the unusual idea that corporate profits and the markets could soar but job/wage growth never really followed as it used to in the past when in the midst of economic growth and recovery.

Employers have gotten far more savy about using temps and contracts workers on a short term basis to keep themselves flexible and meet and demand growth they may run into. In the past they would have just created a permanent job.

This is the new normal, and we all had best get used to it because no matter who the next regime is, they are going to run into the same problem.

IggyPride00;1262839 wrote:Not really. It makes a convenient scape goat, but pretty much all last decade we saw pretty meager job growth even as corporate profits and the market soared.

No, it's what you actually hear from business leaders. It's not scapegoating, it's real. You can argue if its irrational for business leaders to have that belief/perception, but it is reality. It's real and it's not all the subtle, but people are in denial because they refuse to admit Obama is a failure.

The 2000 recession and jobless recovery was markedly different in that it displaced a bunch of internet workers. This last one was cuts across the board, deep job cuts. We haven't even recovered that, much less begun to add new jobs. Structurally a very different job market and outlook and one who's recovery HAS been severely damaged by anti-business policies. There's the fiscal cliff and a regulatory cliff actually (which doesn't get a lot of press) and business simply don't want to waste money hiring people they'll need to fire a few months later.

gut;1262530 wrote:I don't know if you saw her, but she's talking about Romney doesn't/didn't rebuke people for making sexist, bigoted, racist, etc... attacks. And, yet, just this week is Obama silent with multiple association of Nazis, etc... Key difference, though, is Rush Limbaugh is not a politician and doesn't warrant being acknowledged or reprimanded any more than Bill Maher or any other talking head.

The big difference is that no Republican, NONE OF THEM, will dare say anything against Rush. If they make the mistake of doing that, they are backpedalling their position within a day or two. Like it or not, he is the de facto leader of the Republican Party.

stlouiedipalma;1262847 wrote:The big difference is that no Republican, NONE OF THEM, will dare say anything against Rush. If they make the mistake of doing that, they are backpedalling their position within a day or two. Like it or not, he is the de facto leader of the Republican Party.

Why should they have to? He IS NOT a politician. It's liberals that keep trying to attach more importance and weight to Rush Limbaugh. Republicans just really don't talk about him, period.

Actually his Sandra Fluke joke was spot on - she wants to be paid for having sex, a.k.a a whore. The kind of joke that would kill on Bill Maher, but liberals just aren't very smart.

IggyPride00;1262822 wrote:http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/06/news/economy/adp-jobless-claims/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

The jobs reports I think the next 2 months are literally going to determine if BHO gets re-elected. If that number holds after revision then it will be a boon to him at a time when he is basing his re-election on the idea that it is getting better and to stay the course with him.

Willard only needs one of these to be ****ty and the presidency is his now that the campaign is entering the home stretch. Since it is recent, it will have an outsized effect on people's perception of how things are going as they head to the ballot box.

You know that it's sad when Romney has to rely on shitty numbers to advance his cause. God knows McConnell, Boehner, Cantor, et al have done their part to ensure shitty numbers. Their whole game plan since 2009 was to obstruct and deny any legislation which might be seen as a victory for this President. They stuck to their guns on it, though, economy and people be damned. I can see them now, huddling around the table praying for bad numbers. Now that's leadership.

Oh yeah, they were really obstructing things in 2008 and 2009 with massive majorities in the House and Senate. Obama can't even demonstrate the leadership to build consensus within his own party. He's uncompromising and too far left even for his own party, and that's a big part of what makes him such a failure.

gut;1262856 wrote:Why should they have to? He IS NOT a politician. It's liberals that keep trying to attach more importance and weight to Rush Limbaugh. Republicans just really don't talk about him, period.

Actually his Sandra Fluke joke was spot on - she wants to be paid for having sex, a.k.a a whore. The kind of joke that would kill on Bill Maher, but liberals just aren't very smart.

Name me one Republican who has gone against Limbaugh and didn't backtrack within a day or two.

As for being smart, I guess it takes a lot of smarts to not only call someone that but to agree with it.

"Employers have gotten far more savy about using temps and contracts workers on a short term basis to keep themselves flexible and meet and demand growth they may run into. In the past they would have just created a permanent job. "

Based on my interactions with employers in the U.S., I agree with this point. Whoever is elected there has to be some sort of idea to make the U.S. competitive again from an employment perspective, and continue to build a society where people can work their way up. Rethinking our hostility to permanent hires should be a focus point. Based on Obama's and the Dem's repeatedly public union bowing, I don't think that is the right direction.

stlouiedipalma;1262864 wrote:Name me one Republican who has gone against Limbaugh and didn't backtrack within a day or two.

As for being smart, I guess it takes a lot of smarts to not only call someone that but to agree with it.

Again, it's mostly liberals who have this fascination that Limbaugh is someone relevant. If only they would devote half as much scrutiny on their messiah as they do on Limbaugh...

They do love to catch politicians in a "gotcha moment". Mostly the only time he comes up is when some liberal reporter shoves a mic in a face and demands a comment.

gut;1262861 wrote:Oh yeah, they were really obstructing things in 2008 and 2009 with massive majorities in the House and Senate. Obama can't even demonstrate the leadership to build consensus within his own party. He's uncompromising and too far left even for his own party, and that's a big part of what makes him such a failure.

They had 60 votes in the Senate, the bare minimum needed to repulse a filibuster. The Democrats in the Senate aren't what I would call in "lock-step" behind their leader as the Republicans were and are to this day. Those 60 votes didn't last long after Brown won the seat in Massachusetts. Once he won, the R's were free to threaten filibusters at a rate unlike any the Senate has ever seen.

"Like it or not, he is the de facto leader of the Republican Party."

What? The late Ronald Reagan is the leader of the GOP. My wife is pro-choice. She supports abortion in the first trimester even if it is an irresponsible choice, and thinks Sandra Fluke is the biggest idiot on the planet (she works in Pharma, Fluke is an absolute liar with her birth control expenses claims) and has never voted for a Democrat in her life and we won't considering how hard left it turned. We believe in building people up from the bottom rather than tearing the top down. If that makes us evil, fine. I'd rather be evil than stupid.

stlouiedipalma;1262877 wrote:Once he won, the R's were free to threaten filibusters at a rate unlike any the Senate has ever seen.

Harry Reid killed more bills and debate than any Republican filibuster. It's not even close. Again, it's more failure and lack of leadership blamed on the filibuster scapegoat. It's simply not been anywhere near the tool exploited for gridlock that the Dems you need to believe it is.

Harry Reid is actually the one abusing fillibuster, via backdoor by holding cloture votes that he doesn't want to pass and then using that to kill bills. He's done this HUNDREDS of times. H-U-N-D-R-E-D-S. Ask yourself, why the record number of cloture votes and why are the votes being taken BEFORE anyone even begins to fillibuster?

Manhattan Buckeye;1262881 wrote:"Like it or not, he is the de facto leader of the Republican Party."

What? The late Ronald Reagan is the leader of the GOP. My wife is pro-choice. She supports abortion in the first trimester even if it is an irresponsible choice, and thinks Sandra Fluke is the biggest idiot on the planet (she works in Pharma, Fluke is an absolute liar with her birth control expenses claims) and has never voted for a Democrat in her life and we won't considering how hard left it turned. We believe in building people up from the bottom rather than tearing the top down. If that makes us evil, fine. I'd rather be evil than stupid.

Your claim about Reagan is laughable at best. The hard right turn of the Republican Party would make Reagan a RINO today. The teabaggers would mount a primary challenge to him and get his cooperating big-spending ass out of town in a hurry.

stlouiedipalma;1262891 wrote:Your claim about Reagan is laughable at best. The hard right turn of the Republican Party would make Reagan a RINO today. The teabaggers would mount a primary challenge to him and get his cooperating big-spending ass out of town in a hurry.

Just out of curiosity, how has the GOP gone hard right? Do you remember the 80's? Hell, do you remember your Obama who was against gay marriage just a few years ago?

It is 12:15 a.m. my time so I'm going to be soon so apologies if I don't respond, but I really want to know how the GOP turned hard right? Did Olbermann say this?

stlouiedipalma;1262891 wrote:Your claim about Reagan is laughable at best. The hard right turn of the Republican Party would make Reagan a RINO today. The teabaggers would mount a primary challenge to him and get his cooperating big-spending ass out of town in a hurry.

This is my favorite bullsht talking point of all time. I literally giggle every time I hear it.

Rethinking our hostility to permanent hires should be a focus point.

Healthcare costs are the beginning and end of the focus.

If businesses were able to shed the costs of providing insurance, we would seen a job creation wave the likes of which we never have. It would also make it infinitely easier for people over the age of 45-50 to find jobs, as benefits costs (not so much salary for your average employee) often make them prohibitively expensive to hire.

Ask most any business, and from a competitive standpoint healthcare is the biggest killer we face when competing in a global market. Governments around the world (not private buiness) usually provide their citizens healthcare. That is a tremendous cost advantage not having to keep that on the books.

That is seldom discussed, but it is a very real economic concern.

I am not advocating single payer by any means, but at some point we need to assess the viability of an employer based insurance system as far as jobs policy goes. That cost eats up a tremendous amount of money that could be going into new hires, R&D and myriad of other things.

In a global market where you are the only country in the world that's business have to deal with that cost burden, it is a major concern.

Ask any big business what would be more helpful, A) a corporate tax cut, or B) shedding healthcare costs, as far as making them more competitive. It would be 100% answer B.

Unfortunately that opens a whole new can of worms on the ability of people to get healthcare and such, but when discussing national jobs policies we are continually ignoring the elephant in the room because it is uncomfortable to discuss and there is no easy answer.

That does not negate the fact though that it is a very real problem, and will continue to hamper the economy and our global competitiveness.

As a side note, it is also the primary reason why wages have been stagnant for 30 years in this country. Raises many people would have been getting over the years are just diverted to covering the exponentially growing cost of insuring them for the company.

IggyPride00;1262922 wrote:Healthcare costs are the beginning and end of the focus.

If businesses were able to shed the costs of providing insurance, we would seen a job creation wave the likes of which we never have. It would also make it infinitely easier for people over the age of 45-50 to find jobs, as benefits costs (not so much salary for your average employee) often make them prohibitively expensive to hire.

Ask most any business, and from a competitive standpoint healthcare is the biggest killer we face when competing in a global market. Governments around the world (not private buiness) usually provide their citizens healthcare. That is a tremendous cost advantage not having to keep that on the books.

That is seldom discussed, but it is a very real economic concern.

I am not advocating single payer by any means, but at some point we need to assess the viability of an employer based insurance system as far as jobs policy goes. That cost eats up a tremendous amount of money that could be going into new hires, R&D and myriad of other things.

In a global market where you are the only country in the world that's business have to deal with that cost burden, it is a major concern.

Ask any big business what would be more helpful, A) a corporate tax cut, or B) shedding healthcare costs, as far as making them more competitive. It would be 100% answer B.

Unfortunately that opens a whole new can of worms on the ability of people to get healthcare and such, but when discussing national jobs policies we are continually ignoring the elephant in the room because it is uncomfortable to discuss and there is no easy answer.

That does not negate the fact though that it is a very real problem, and will continue to hamper the economy and our global competitiveness.

As a side note, it is also the primary reason why wages have been stagnant for 30 years in this country. Raises many people would have been getting over the years are just diverted to covering the exponentially growing cost of insuring them for the company.

An excellent post.

Businesses don't look at healthcare costs in a vacuum. Most have group insurance, so hiring someone aged 50 is really no more expensive (ignoring a higher wage commensurate with experience) than someone aged 30.

It's also true that real wages have stagnated, but not quite when you factor in healthcare costs. Implicit in the Obamakare play is that businesses will offload the insurance and then pay you the savings in wages. This is unlikely to happen, at least something well less than 100%. Alternatively, they don't pay the fine and continue providing insurance, and I remain skeptical of significant savings, if any, from Obamakare.

The number one reason businesses are reluctant to hire/fire workers is the cost of hiring and training itself. This is why, in uncertain times, they ere on the side of caution. Cutbacks and layoffs are also bad for morale, so companies are very reluctant to hire when they foresee instability and perilous economic conditions. That's also another big reason to favor contract workers, because by nature they are temporary (and you don't incur unemployment costs when they are done). But talk to most contract workers and they do better, even after paying for their own insurance, than they do as full-time employees (ignoring any potential gaps between gigs, but in many cases they were laid-off in the past and have come back on-board where they've remained, for years in some cases, and have no desire to be "full-time").

The fallout of this is realy entertaining:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/09/05/HuffPo-Scolds-Dems-for-Caving-On-Reinsertion-of-God-and-Jerusalem-Into-Platform

[h=2]The Huffington Post scolded Democrats this evening for having "caved" to pro-religion and pro-Israel forces after party bosses re-inserted God and Jerusalem into the Democrat Party platform after they were removed during the process leading up to the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, NC.[/h]Pointing to the widening divisions within the Democrat Party over these two issues, the Huffington Post's headline screamed that the Democrats have become "The Pushover Party" now that God and Jerusalem have returned.

The Huffington Post also seems to be suggesting that real Democrats don't cave to Christians and Jews.

When Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, chairing the convention, called for a voice vote from the floor to approve the amendments to the platform, those opposed to affirming support of God and Jerusalem as Israel's capital made themselves known with loud dissent from the floor.

gut;1262932 wrote:Businesses don't look at healthcare costs in a vacuum. Most have group insurance, so hiring someone aged 50 is really no more expensive (ignoring a higher wage commensurate with experience) than someone aged 30.

It's also true that real wages have stagnated, but not quite when you factor in healthcare costs. Implicit in the Obamakare play is that businesses will offload the insurance and then pay you the savings in wages. This is unlikely to happen, at least something well less than 100%. Alternatively, they don't pay the fine and continue providing insurance, and I remain skeptical of significant savings, if any, from Obamakare.

The number one reason businesses are reluctant to hire/fire workers is the cost of hiring and training itself. This is why, in uncertain times, they ere on the side of caution. Cutbacks and layoffs are also bad for morale, so companies are very reluctant to hire when they foresee instability and perilous economic conditions. That's also another big reason to favor contract workers, because by nature they are temporary (and you don't incur unemployment costs when they are done). But talk to most contract workers and they do better, even after paying for their own insurance, than they do as full-time employees (ignoring any potential gaps between gigs, but in many cases they were laid-off in the past and have come back on-board where they've remained, for years in some cases, and have no desire to be "full-time").

Another excellent post.

IggyPride00;1262922 wrote: Ask any big business what would be more helpful, A) a corporate tax cut, or B) shedding healthcare costs, as far as making them more competitive. It would be 100% answer B.

I'm going to 100% disagree with you. Ignoring that any savvy business would have to crunch the numbers (and a tax cut being far easier and more certain to value than "potential" healthcare savings), the reality is like half of businesses DON'T provide any healthcare. Healthcare is something that is managed closely because you can move the needle with little to no impact on your workers (until someone actually needs it). But a few grand in marginal savings (if that) is not nearly enough to move the needle in the decision to add a worker. It's not lack of profits or cash that prevents the hiring of more workers today, so it's dubious to think some healthcare savings will lead to more hiring or higher wages.

Now, do you put more money in the pockets of business with healthcare reform or tax cuts? That's a much more interesting debate, but again indeterminate under some unknown quantity of healthcare savings. And the reality is that Obamakare is a TAX INCREASE for those businesses not currently providing health benefits. So perhaps it would be a total comp increase for 98% of workers, and a 100% decrease for the rest.

Your comment is entirely true for companies providing health benefits to retirees. That is, of course, what really put the Big 3 into trouble. But that's primarily for union shops, and it's going the way of the dodo bird. Companies long ago began shifting away from defined benefit pensions for salaried workers and went to 401k's.