Will past personal issues affect Obama's 2012 campaign?

[WhoWee]

You, ah, did see this post, right?

Actually no - not until after I posted.

 

[Al68]

Quoted from Wiki:

There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true.

What was that again?

Did you misinterpret my post? The argument was not just that the assertion was true, it was the notion that their assertions were true "since, you know, they study that kind of thing."

 

[WhoWee]

There's still the military, unless he downsizes the military. They still get paid outside of combat... they just don't do anything.

Actually, I thought Bush made a HUGE mistake when he started using reserves - it's very disruptive to jobs and businesses - IMO - not to mention quite a few have families.

 

[WhoWee]

Anyway, I doubt that Obama is short-sighted enough to have not considered employment for returning vets.

I'm sure we would have heard something about his glorious plan by now - if he had one - don't you?

 

[turbo]

I'm sure we would have heard something about his glorious plan by now - if he had one - don't you?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Perhaps you can show us why he doesn't have any plan for returning troops...

 

[WhoWee]

I'll just add to my post above:


Every year that FDR was in office for his first two terms, unemployment fell. The only exceptions being in 1937 and 1938. The numbers only say that unemployment grew if you count government workers as "Unemployed" which they aren't, since they are doing a job and getting paid for it (thus "employed").

Also during FDR's first two terms, the U.S. economy grew at rates of between 9-10%, massive growth for a depression if you ask me.

20% of banks failed when Hoover did nothing, each one that failed leading to the next one failing due to a lack of programs like the FDIC, as people didn't think their money was safe in a bank, opting instead for the good ol' mattress. That is, until FDR stabilized the banks through the FDIC and other programs.

The growth wasn't only in government jobs though, the private sector also grew. With the banks stabilizing, small businesses could pull money in and out, invest it, reinvest, get loans, whatever they needed again without fear of the bank disappearing the next day.

If that isn't proof enough, the two years in which unemployment grew (1937-1938) are the two years in which FDR pulled back his New Deal program because conservatives asked him to. They said "balance the budget - or try to" so he raised taxes and cut spending, and the depression continued because of this until a new bailout of sorts came along in the form of WWII.

I'll assume this is your opinion - other opinions conclude FDR extended the Depression with his policies - IMO.

Obviously the 1930's economy (size/structure/complexity) differs from the 2011 - 2012 economy as do the social safety net.

 

[WhoWee]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Perhaps you can show us why he doesn't have any plan for returning troops...

Huh?

 

[turbo]

Huh?

You claimed that he had no "glorious plan" because we haven't heard anything about it. I'm asking you to support that statement. There are millions of initiatives, suggestions, etc, in our government that we never hear about because they are not elucidated in policy speeches nor covered by what is left of our very anemic press. Where did you come up with the idea that the Obama administration has not considered employment opportunities for returning vets?

 

[WhoWee]

You claimed that he had no "glorious plan" because we haven't heard anything about it. I'm asking you to support that statement. There are millions of initiatives, suggestions, etc, in our government that we never hear about because they are not elucidated in policy speeches nor covered by what is left of our very anemic press. Where did you come up with the idea that the Obama administration has not considered employment opportunities for returning vets?

Well, I've searched for his announcement of an employment plan for returning vets - all I could find was this:

http://www.opm.gov/News_Events/congress/testimony/112thCongress/04_13_2011.asp

It looks like his plan is to give them Government jobs?

Did you find anything?

 

[drankin]

You claimed that he had no "glorious plan" because we haven't heard anything about it. I'm asking you to support that statement. There are millions of initiatives, suggestions, etc, in our government that we never hear about because they are not elucidated in policy speeches nor covered by what is left of our very anemic press. Where did you come up with the idea that the Obama administration has not considered employment opportunities for returning vets?

Until a plan is revealed. There is no plan. No need to support "nothing". To assume there must be one just because, makes no sense.

 

[turbo]

Well, I've searched for his announcement of an employment plan for returning vets - all I could find was this:

http://www.opm.gov/News_Events/congress/testimony/112thCongress/04_13_2011.asp

It looks like his plan is to give them Government jobs?

Did you find anything?

I shouldn't have to find anything. You made the claim.

 

[WhoWee]

I shouldn't have to find anything. You made the claim.

No turbo - you made the claim when you posted:

"Anyway, I doubt that Obama is short-sighted enough to have not considered employment for returning vets."

 

[BobG]

I'm sure we would have heard something about his glorious plan by now - if he had one - don't you?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Perhaps you can show us why he doesn't have any plan for returning troops...

Or, perhaps, because no new plan is necessary. How members of the Guard and Reserve are handled has been law for many years. The only reason a plan would be necessary for active duty members is if a withdrawal from Afghanistan meant a reduction in the size of the military.

Post World War II, there was a serious reduction in the size of the military and the GI Bill was the plan. It at least extended the reentry of vets into the workforce since many could go to school instead. The rest was handled culturally as returning vets replaced women in the work force, while the women became housewives. That plan probably wouldn't work today.

Likewise, there was a serious reduction in the size of the military when the Soviet Union broke up and the cold war ended. Fortunately, that reduction in force occurred during an economic boom and finding jobs wasn't a huge problem. That plan probably wouldn't work today, either.

But, the more relevant point is that there probably isn't even a need for a plan.

 

[turbo]

No turbo - you made the claim when you posted:

"Anyway, I doubt that Obama is short-sighted enough to have not considered employment for returning vets."

"I doubt" means that my thoughts on the administration's policy regarding returning vets is a matter of opinion, and I doubt that employment opportunities for them have not been considered.

 

[Ryumast3r]

Although I agree with you here, you should probably source your info. Just sayin'.

Yeah, sometimes I really cannot be arsed to cite history books, I'll go and pull some graphs now and maybe the hard numbers later.

The "appeal to authority" logical fallacy? Most people don't admit to it so openly.

Anyway, a little research will show that economists are actually very divided on the issue, and always have been. Non-Keynesian economists generally agree that FDR's policies made the situation far worse, while Keynesian economists say otherwise. The same disagreement exists today: economics is divided into ideological camps.

IMO, Keynesian economics is nothing more than a cover for left-wingers believing whatever serves their agenda. It has been used by the left as a license to steal since FDR.

If Keynesian economics is nothing more than a cover for left-wingers, then non-keynesian is just a cover for right-wingers. cwutididthar? The last paragraph is really just a bunch of fluff.

Anyway, the fact is that during his time unemployment went down and the economy grew 9-10%.

Unemployment (in graph form, yay):

And here's the GDP:

In 1937 and 1938 FDR cut spending and raised taxes in order to balance the budget more, and both graphs agree: GDP went down and unemployment went up.

Keynesian or not, whatever it was FDR was doing was working, and when he tried to do the other thing (back out and let the free market do its thing) the unemployment numbers went up, and growth not only stopped, but became shrinkage.

Saying "It could have been faster" is like saying your doctor prolonged your pain because it took 9 weeks for your leg to heal instead of 7.

 

[turbo]

Or, perhaps, because no new plan is necessary. How members of the Guard and Reserve are handled has been law for many years. The only reason a plan would be necessary for active duty members is if a withdrawal from Afghanistan meant a reduction in the size of the military.

There may be some need for action as these vets return. If their employers have hired replacements or eliminated their jobs and refuse to re-hire them, there could be some complications. There are also a lot of folks that had their own businesses and had to give them up and/or leave them in other hands while they served us overseas. They may need training and/or financial assistance (loan guarantees, perhaps) in order to rebuild.

 

[WhoWee]

"I doubt" means that my thoughts on the administration's policy regarding returning vets is a matter of opinion, and I doubt that employment opportunities for them have not been considered.

Accordingly, it's my opinion that if President Obama had a plan - we would hear about it from him.

 

[Ryumast3r]

Accordingly, it's my opinion that if President Obama had a plan - we would hear about it from him.

Because every plan that Obama comes up with is presented in a speech?

 

[WhoWee]

Because every plan that Obama comes up with is presented in a speech?

In the context of this thread?

 

[Ryumast3r]

In the context of this thread?

Yes, even in the context of this thread I'd disagree that Obama vocalizes every plan he comes up with as soon as he comes up with it. They're really still debating over the troop withdrawal plan because some fear it might hurt Afghanistan and empower the Taliban more. This is all just my opinion, but if I were in his shoes, I'd wait until the debate is settled (in terms of the effect on afghanistan) before I started a new debate on how to handle the troops homecoming. If the debate became too long, well, December is still a long way out, and there's always time for a speech between now and then.

That, and unveiling some kind of grand scheme for the troops closer to the elections could probably not hurt, if people liked it anyway.

 

[WhoWee]

Yes, even in the context of this thread I'd disagree that Obama vocalizes every plan he comes up with as soon as he comes up with it. They're really still debating over the troop withdrawal plan because some fear it might hurt Afghanistan and empower the Taliban more. This is all just my opinion, but if I were in his shoes, I'd wait until the debate is settled (in terms of the effect on afghanistan) before I started a new debate on how to handle the troops homecoming. If the debate became too long, well, December is still a long way out, and there's always time for a speech between now and then.

That, and unveiling some kind of grand scheme for the troops closer to the elections could probably not hurt, if people liked it anyway.

Well - IMO - leaders lead. If he wants advice he should talk to his military leaders - I assume you're talking about the political debate?

 

[Al68]

If Keynesian economics is nothing more than a cover for left-wingers, then non-keynesian is just a cover for right-wingers.

Sure, it theoretically could be, but non-Keynesian (post-Enlightenment) economics as a science was around long before the science of economics was corrupted for political purposes. Keynes hit the scene in the 1930s, along with the worldwide spread of leftist/socialist/FDR propaganda he supported, and the politicization of economics in general. Keynesian economics was essentially created to politically support economic oppression.

Regardless, your point is valid in the sense that one needs to recognize that the science of economics has become politicized, and unlike chemistry, for example, ideology plays a huge role.

In 1937 and 1938 FDR cut spending and raised taxes in order to balance the budget more, and both graphs agree: GDP went down and unemployment went up.

Of course: the spending cuts were http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/hist.pdf" relative to the economy-draining tax increases.

Keynesian or not, whatever it was FDR was doing was working, and when he tried to do the other thing (back out and let the free market do its thing) the unemployment numbers went up, and growth not only stopped, but became shrinkage.

That's not only nonsense, it contradicts what you said above. Raising taxes hardly qualifies as "letting the free market do its thing". And you can't credit FDR policy for the economy initially doing what one would expect it to do faster without government intervention, based on the history of economic downturns.

Saying "It could have been faster" is like saying your doctor prolonged your pain because it took 9 weeks for your leg to heal instead of 7.

A better analogy would be claiming that someone banging on your cast with a hammer helped it, after it takes 9 weeks instead of 7 to heal.

As I pointed out above, it's typical for an economy to completely rebound from a downturn within a couple of years. The 1930s and today are pretty much the only examples to the contrary. And they have a lot in common as far as government intervention.

But if you really want to discuss the Great Depression in detail, I would suggest starting another thread. Otherwise, I really just wanted to point out that the science of economics has been politically and ideologically divided every since Keynes hit the scene. It's no longer a science in the way physics or chemistry is.

 

[Ryumast3r]

Otherwise, I really just wanted to point out that the science of economics has been politically and ideologically divided every since Keynes hit the scene. It's no longer a science in the way physics or chemistry is.

I can really agree here, and that goes for both sides, left and right. At any rate, economics has never really been precise.

 

[Ryumast3r]

Well - IMO - leaders lead. If he wants advice he should talk to his military leaders - I assume you're talking about the political debate?

Yeah, I'm talking about the political debate (though, IIRC I saw something about military leaders debating as well), and I would agree that he should talk to military leaders about the impact in Afghanistan, and talk to domestic experts as to the impact at home.

 

[BobG]

There may be some need for action as these vets return. If their employers have hired replacements or eliminated their jobs and refuse to re-hire them, there could be some complications. There are also a lot of folks that had their own businesses and had to give them up and/or leave them in other hands while they served us overseas. They may need training and/or financial assistance (loan guarantees, perhaps) in order to rebuild.

I can almost guarantee there will be at least a few employers that refuse to take vets back. There almost always are. And some vets won't realize they can take action or will decide that the actions required to get their job back will create such a hostile environment that it won't be worth it.

But, they certainly can get their job back if they want it unless the employer has changed so drastically during the interim that they can show taking them back is unfeasible. To do that, it would usually take more than simply eliminating the vet's old job (eliminating the vet's old job and replacing it with some other title is a trick that doesn't work). The company would have had to have undergone such a truly drastic change in size that any reasonable person would conclude that the vet's job would have been eliminated anyway.

Having hired a replacement for the vet wouldn't cut it. The employer would have to let the replacement go and rehire the vet. (Cole v Swint).

Not only will the vet get his job back but he also (http://www.la.ngb.army.mil/jag/publ...l Assistance USERRA Guide JA 270 19980601.pdf):

If you meet the eligibility criteria discussed above, you have seven basic entitlements:
a. Prompt reinstatement.
b. Accrued seniority, as if you had been continuously employed.
c. Status.
d. Health insurance coverage.
e. Other non-seniority benefits, as if you had been on a furlough or leave of absence.
f. Training or retraining and other accommodations.
g. Special protection against discharge, except for cause.

And, actually, employers can't legally discriminate against reservists when hiring or in deciding whether to retain employees. (Realistically, reservists and national guard members could experience problems if the employers were clever about it.) http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-400.pdf

Private business, especially one such as a doctor or lawyer that will lose their customer base, is probably the one issue that isn't covered. You can't really order patients to go back to their old doctor now that he's returned from his year long deployment.

 

[BobG]

Who said the President doesn't have a clear (emergency?) energy policy?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/23/6926118-targeting-gas-prices-obama-administration-taps-strategic-oil-reserve

"Decisions to withdraw crude oil from the reserve, which the department calls "a key tool of foreign policy," are made by the president in the event of an "energy emergency." Prior to today's announcement, the reserve has been used under these circumstances just twice -- during Operation Desert Storm in 1991 and after Hurricane Katrina in 2005."

IMO - the emergency in this case is poor polling results in accordance with gas prices?

IMO - we won't see drastic drops in prices at the pump. Generally speaking, this will result in a sharp drop in oil prices for gasoline retailers, but a very gradual downslope in the price of gasoline prices for customers. If there is such a thing as price gouging by gasoline companies, it's being very slow to drop retail prices when oil prices drop. There just isn't as much pressure from consumers when prices are going down.

If Obama somehow puts pressure on retailers to drop the price as fast as oil prices drop (either giving them bad PR or hint at threats to reduce oil subsidies/tax breaks, etc), then I would consider that a surprise success.

 

[WhoWee]

IMO - we won't see drastic drops in prices at the pump. Generally speaking, this will result in a sharp drop in oil prices for gasoline retailers, but a very gradual downslope in the price of gasoline prices for customers. If there is such a thing as price gouging by gasoline companies, it's being very slow to drop retail prices when oil prices drop. There just isn't as much pressure from consumers when prices are going down.

If Obama somehow puts pressure on retailers to drop the price as fast as oil prices drop (either giving them bad PR or hint at threats to reduce oil subsidies/tax breaks, etc), then I would consider that a surprise success.

Isn't the amount released a 2 day equivalent supply?

 

[BobG]

Isn't the amount released a 2 day equivalent supply?

It doesn't have to replace an entire day's oil supply. It has to replace the 1.5 million barrels per day that Libya's not producing. Additionally, the 30 mil that the US will release is just half the total that the IEA (including the US) will release. Essentially, that's enough to cover the Libya gap for 40 days.

Hopefully, the release will have a greater effect on prices than it will the overall oil supply, since the loss of Libyan oil seems to have had a much greater impact on prices than such a small gap would be expected to have. At least a few think the Libya gap fueled speculation on the oil market and that the speculation had more effect on prices than the loss of Libya's oil.

The announcement has already driven crude oil prices down about $6.50 a barrel. Of course, the announcement also helped drive down stock prices, too, but a couple other things helped with the latter. It's trade-off, don't you know. Would you rather have a healthy 401k or a full gas tank?

 

[WhoWee]

It doesn't have to replace an entire day's oil supply. It has to replace the 1.5 million barrels per day that Libya's not producing. Additionally, the 30 mil that the US will release is just half the total that the IEA (including the US) will release. Essentially, that's enough to cover the Libya gap for 40 days.

Hopefully, the release will have a greater effect on prices than it will the overall oil supply, since the loss of Libyan oil seems to have had a much greater impact on prices than such a small gap would be expected to have. At least a few think the Libya gap fueled speculation on the oil market and that the speculation had more effect on prices than the loss of Libya's oil.

The announcement has already driven crude oil prices down about $6.50 a barrel. Of course, the announcement also helped drive down stock prices, too, but a couple other things helped with the latter. It's trade-off, don't you know. Would you rather have a healthy 401k or a full gas tank?

The President better hope the Saudi's approve of his move (and taking credit for a price change) - or we might see a cut in production.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/10/business/la-fi-saudioil-20110610

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The President better hope the Saudi's approve of his move (and taking credit for a price change) - or we might see a cut in production.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/10/business/la-fi-saudioil-20110610

Actually, the Saudi's had tried to increase production but other OPEC members rejected the motion.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-08/saudis-face-opposition-to-possible-opec-increase.html

 

[WhoWee]

Actually, the Saudi's had tried to increase production but other OPEC members rejected the motion.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-08/saudis-face-opposition-to-possible-opec-increase.html

That is not good news either - let's hope this isn't their excuse to re-align with their OPEC brothers.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That is not good news either - let's hope this isn't their excuse to re-align with their OPEC brothers.

It was the first time OPEC ended a meeting without an agreement.

Being mainly a product of the 70s and OPEC induced gas shortages, I took this as a good thing. Frankly, I would prefer they allow the prices to stay high. This is the only way we will ever end our reliance on oil.

Of course Presidents don't get reelected when oil prices are high, so Obama will be highly motivated to get prices down for the election season.

 

[WhoWee]

Being mainly a product of the 70s and OPEC induced gas shortages, I took this as a good thing. Frankly, I would prefer they allow the prices to stay high. This is the only way we will ever end our reliance on oil.

Please tell us it's because you believe strongly in bio-fuel technology - not because you favor electric cars powered by solar/wind.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Please tell us it's because you believe strongly in bio-fuel technology - not because you favor electric cars powered by solar/wind.

I dedicated two years of my life to the algae biofuel option.

While it [algae derived fuel] is too big of a challenge for the little guy [you needs $billions, not $millions to do this], I am convinced this or a similar technology is a critical component of our energy future.

While wind and solar have their place, imo we can't solve the energy problem without biofuels.

 

[WhoWee]

I dedicated two years of my life to the algae biofuel option.

While it [algae derived fuel] is too big of a challenge for the little guy [you needs $billions, not $millions to do this], I am convinced this or a similar technology is a critical component of our energy future.

While wind and solar have their place, imo we can't solve the energy problem without biofuels.

I have to admit, you've convinced me over time of the potential from algae. I'll believe in wind and solar when President Obama convinces Iran they are a better choice than nuclear power.

Until we have adequate supply at competitively priced alternatives - drill baby drill, frac baby frac, and squeeze (or whatever they do to the) sands - IMO.