Showing posts with label hope and change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hope and change. Show all posts

Friday, December 2, 2011

NYT's Curious Definition Of "Hope"

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that in November, 315,000 people "dropped out of the labor force," while only 130,000 new jobs were added.  In other words, the jobs situation took yet another significant turn for the worse.  Yet in the unique math practiced by today's BLS - not accounting for those who have dropped out of the labor force in the U-3 unemployment number - that means the our nation's job situation actually improved, on paper only of course.  The reality is that we still have "13 million unemployed workers, whose periods of unemployment averaged an all-time high of 40.9 weeks" and that number continues to grow, far outpacing job creation.  Nonetheless, the BLS calculates that the unemployment rate dropped from 9% to 8.6% in November, thus leading the New York Times to trumpet:

Signs of Hope in Jobs Report; Unemployment Drops to 8.6%

Many more signs of hope like that and our nation will be completely wrecked. 


Update:  The broader unemployment number, U-6, which includes the underemployed, is at a staggering 15.6%.


Rush Limbaugh has a colorful rant dealing with both the fraud in the unemployment number and the reaction of the drive-by media to the 8.6% number.  Meanwhile, TIME magazine's Stephen Gandell suggests that this drop below 9% could be a "game changer," a sure sign of a strengthening economy.  That level of intellectual dishonesty is stomach churning.


That said, not all left of center pundits are intellectually dishonest.  My hats off to The New Republic for publishing this Brookings Institution analysis of the current job situation:

Three points are worthy of note.

First: Despite the growth of the working-age population over the past four years, the labor force (roughly, the sum of those employed plus job-seekers) has not expanded. For various reasons, more and more Americans have been dropping out of the labor force. If Americans of working age were participating in the labor force at the same rate as they were at the onset of the recession, the labor force would be nearly 5 million people larger, and unemployment would be significantly worse in both absolute and percentage terms.

Second: Despite the modest economic recovery since the recession ended in mid-2009, total employment remains more than 5.5 million below the level of 2007 and about 1.6 million below where it was when President Obama took office.

Third: To regain full employment (5 percent, which happens to be the same as the level when the recession began) with the pre-recessionary labor force participation rate, we would need 150.7 million jobs—10.1 million more than we have today. That’s a reasonable measure of the hole we’re still in, two and a half years since the official end of the recession.

The American people are unlikely to cheer up about the economy until we get appreciably closer to the top of the hole.

This graph, from Doug Ross, shows the depth of unemployment during this recession in comparison to all of the other recessions since WWII:


Read More...

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Hope & Change In The Cold, Crisp Bostonian Air

Never did I think Hope n' Change would infect conservatives, but it seems this stuff is more infectious than the H1N1 . . . . .



Scott Brown leads Martha Coakley by 4 points in the latest Suffolk’s Political Research Center of likely voters. In bluest of blue Massachussets? For Chappaquiddick Ted's ancestral seat? The only thing that could make this any better would be if I had an ownership stake in the Depends and Peptobismal kiosk nearest the White House.

I have not blogged this up to now because, so many other people have been doing such a good job of it. But this latest info has infected even me with the hope and change flu. Jules Crittenden, Legal Insurrection and Memorandum are the places to go for updates. This is really fun. If Ted is in heaven, I am sure they are keeping him in a room that doesn't get cable news. Then again, if he is in hell, I have no doubt he is sitting superglued to a chair in front of Fox News in widescreen HD.

Read More...

Saturday, August 23, 2008

Latest Under The Bus - The Promise Of Change


The central message of Obama's campaign is that he will bring some undefined, utopian "change" to Washington and the business of politics as usual. Over the past year, he has justified voting for him because of the "fierce urgency of now," a phrase used by MLK to tell America that it could wait no longer to respond to the civil rights problems that dominated the 1960's. Obama used MLK's phrase to claim that America could not afford to wait for him to gain the experience necessary to be commander in chief - change was needed now.

It appears that the "fierce urgency of now" has been replaced of the fierce urgency of taking the focus off of Obama's inexperience and his reoccuring foreign policy gaffes, the latest of which was his weak response to the Russian invasion of Georgia. The Hope and Changemonger in Chief has, by choosing Sen Joe Biden as his VP, tossed the mantle of "change" under the bus. You can't get more of a Washington insider than Biden, a man who has spent almost 35 years in Congress. Even the AP is sputtering over this one.

Update: And even Kos agrees that Obama's choise of Biden tosses the mantle of change under the bus and only serves to highlight Obama's gaping weaknesses.
____________________________________________________________

This from the AP's Ron Fournier:

. . . In picking Sen. Joe Biden to be his running mate, Barack Obama sought to shore up his weakness — inexperience in office and on foreign policy — rather than underscore his strength as a new-generation candidate defying political conventions.

He picked a 35-year veteran of the Senate — the ultimate insider — rather than a candidate from outside Washington, such as Govs. Tim Kaine of Virginia or Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas; or from outside his party, such as Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska; or from outside the mostly white male club of vice presidential candidates. Hillary Rodham Clinton didn't even make his short list.

The picks say something profound about Obama: For all his self-confidence, the 47-year-old Illinois senator worried that he couldn't beat Republican John McCain without help from a seasoned politician willing to attack.

. . . A senior Obama adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity, said his boss has expressed impatience with what he calls a "reverence" inside his campaign for his message of change and new politics. In other words, Obama is willing — even eager — to risk what got him this far if it gets him to the White House.

. . . So the question is whether Biden's depth counters Obama's inexperience — or highlights it?

After all, Biden is anything but a change agent, having been in office longer than half of all Americans have been alive. Longer than McCain.

And he talks too much.

. . . And there's the 2007 ABC interview in which Biden said he would stand by an earlier statement that Obama was not ready to serve as president.

It seems Obama is worried that some voters are starting to agree.

Read the entire article. And there is this from Kos:

I wrote a a month ago:

we really, really don't want to pick someone who plugs a supposed gap in Obama's armor. You pick Wes Clark, and people won't see "phew, national security is covered!". Nope, they'll see, "Obama is trying to compensate for his lack of national security creds!" And whether it's Sam Nunn, or Joe Biden, or anyone else who supposedly patches up a weakness, the end result would be what Gore had to endure in 2000 -- "He picked Joe Lieberman to compensate for Gore's 'Bill Clinton' problem."

So now Biden is Obama's pick, and he's clearly not a reinforcing one. If Obama's core message is "change" and "judgment" based on his prescience on the Iraq War vote, well then, Biden is the exact opposite of those things. And the media has reacted accordingly. NY Times:

...Mr. Obama’s choice of Mr. Biden suggested some of the weaknesses the Obama campaign is trying to address at a time when at a time when national polls suggest that his race with Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, is tightening.

At the Wasington Post homepage, the blurb teasing their Biden story says:

In a move aimed at shoring up his foreign policy credentials, Barack Obama will share Democratic ticket with Delaware Senator Joseph R. Biden.

McCain's mole at the Associated Press, Ron Fournier, is gleefully at it as well. . . .

Not surprisingly, the times that I agree with Kos can be counted on one hand, even if I'm wearing a mitten. But I think he is right on this one. People are going to vote for or against Obama, irrespective of Biden. Biden comes with his own ton of baggage and he represents such a change from Obama that he will only serve to highlight Obama's weaknesses. Indeed, the McCain campaign is already busy pointing that out:

Today, McCain spokesman Ben Porritt issued the following statement on Barack Obama’s selection of Joe Biden as his running mate:

“There has been no harsher critic of Barack Obama’s lack of experience than Joe Biden. Biden has denounced Barack Obama’s poor foreign policy judgment and has strongly argued in his own words what Americans are quickly realizing — that Barack Obama is not ready to be President.”

People who are paniced and desperate make poor decisions. Obama's choice to start attacking McCain's character and associations is his first huge mistake. Choosing Biden as VP is his second.

(H/T Gateway Pundit)


Read More...