GOP Debate... TONIGHT (Page 2)

I lived in Massachusetts for several years. The Romney running now does not appear to be the same one that ran there. He is, IMHO, a weathervane rather than a leader - he says what is appropriate for his current target. I have no idea what he really believes other than that he ought to be president.

Bachman has made way too many comments about how the recent earthquake, and now Hurricane Irene, all coming near DC are supposed to be a "sign". Hoo-boy.

Perry wants to be skeptical about climate change science? That's his right. But as president, he'd better be willing to consult scientists. And since far more climate scientists believe humans are impacting global warming than believe we're not at fault (I've seen estimates of something like 98% believe human impact), well, you're rejecting the opinion of a lot of people who study this stuff for a living. Next.

And if I hear one more person say that evolution "is just a theory"... Did you people not study science? Do you not know what "theory" means in scientific language? Heck, gravity is just a "theory" but I have yet to see anyone float off the planet as a result...

/soapbox

Sorry, I'm referencing the final election.  During the primaries I will find someone to vote for, probably leaning toward Romney (that was my vote last go around).  But being from Texas I have watched the political machine that is Rick Perry and how he steamrolls his opponents for years, and I just don't see a world where he doesn't beat out everyone for the nomination (much to my dismay).  At that point, I have no one to vote for other than write-ins.  I guess my expectations of future events have my feeling disconnected and not where we actually are in the process.

Once I saw RP enter I lost all hope.  He's like a political navy seal team.  in a bad way.  It just doesn't seem like there's anything he can't accomplish.

Dunno if this was in response to my comment or not, but... My problem with Romney is not that his positions have changed - I know mine have over they years - but with how his position changes seem to align with where he is, where he is running. In Massachusetts he was certainly a moderate (even liberal) Republican; now he isn't. Funny how in a liberal state he was liberal and now nationally he isn't....

This is something I picked up on.  The way many of the questions were asked were trying to provoke arguments between the candidates.  While it is true that this is an opportunity for them to set themselves aprt they do not have to attach each other to do so.

Newt picked up on this too and called out the moderator at one point.

bradword - 2011-09-08 11:11 AM

JoshR - 2011-09-08 9:33 AM I have been reading that Perry went over and confronted Paul during a commercial break. That is odd to me.

Perry seems like such a bad option to me. He physically confronted Paul on break and got in his face, classy buddy. Another pic: http://photos.denverpost.com/mediacenter/2011/09/photos-gop-debate-...

I would love for Ron Paul to bish slap that punk. 

I think Perry will come off to much like the Bush machine from Texas and I don't think people by and large are ready for another W Bush.  I don't think he can beat Obama but more and more people are growing tired of the rhetoric of Obama every day.  He can talk all he wants but the fact is that the economy still sucks and it sucks worse now than it did when he took office.  It ain't workin'

I agree it "ain't workin" all that great, but you must admit that your statement that I bolded just isn't true.  One quick graph:

Full disclosure:  I did not watch the debate and will not vote for any of the current GOP candidates ever, so thought, "why waste my time".

Actually that chart proves his point.  Those are jobs LOST for each month.  So until there is an equal amount of bars ABOVE the zero line as BELOW it there continues to be a net loss of jobs.  They are not being lost at as great of a rate but they are still being lost.  So in terms of jobs he's right.  It is worse now than when he took office.

See my crude MS Paint chart below.  This would be a net ZERO job loss rate for Obama.

(Untitled.png)

This is partially true. The media is manipulative and biased. And everything is geared towards sound bites, which does not permit any kind of deep though. The candidates don't help themselves by relying on polling to determine their positions.

I always had great respect for John McCain because he had his core beliefs, popular or not, and stood by them. Up until the last election.

The election will be about the economy, but there are other important issues at stake. Those issues could affect not just me but the future of my children and their children. So I want to know where they stand on those issues also. Personally I'd vote for a fiscally conservative, socially moderate candidate if one could make it to the general election. However I think both party process and leadership will continue to produce anything but moderate candidates, in either party.

I understood you up until that bolded statement.  If they are not being lost at as great a rate how is it worse then when he took office?  Not arguing with you, just not understanding.

Chart just happens to leave out last 18 months of job data.   That is a much more telling picture as to why this has gone from a Bush inheritance issue  to a failure to change policy to spark growth and private sector job creation.   Better yet, failure to simply stay out of the way.  

http://www.flickr.com/photos/davecjohnson/6088811219/lightbox/

here is the updated chart.............

What's inaccurate about the updated chart I included in the discussion?  Those are just raw numbers directly from the BLS. 

 Ok let me understand this. There are people that believe Obama has created jobs?  Really? Let's see punishing the people that
create jobs, will create jobs?  Ok one more try the Government taking more away from the rich, who employ workers, and then giving it to organizations to make products people do not want, will grow the economy.  Ok ok one more time taking money away from the rich who own businesses, that hire workers to make products that people want to buy, will  grow the economy, by hiring government workers, who will create restrictions, to prevent the rich business owners from making a profit on the creation of things people want to buy, this will grow the economy?      Oh my!! we are doomed

On a second note I see your logic that the reduction of job loss is an indication that we will soon create new jobs.  As indicated by your paint program line, perhaps you failed to take in to account there are less jobs remaining too lose? It is kind of like fishing in a small pond the fact that over time you catch less fish is not an indication that you are a better fisherman, but the
fact that there are less fish to catch.

I think this is misleading. The rich do not employ workers (except maybe domestic help), companies do. In any public corporation the CEO is also an employee. We should be focusing on incentives for companies to hire and expand. Things like research tax credits to spur innovation, payroll tax cuts and credits for new hires, capital investment credits, etc. And we definitely need to make it financially advantageous to hire workers here rather then abroad. Reasonably it can't be for all jobs, but certainly there must be sectors where this can be done, or we will continue to have high unemployment.

If I have $10 and lose

$3 on day 1

$2 on day 2

$1 on day 3

I am still worse off on day 3 than I was day 1.  I'm not losing money at the same rate but I'm still in the hole.

It's not necessarily inaccurate, just misleading. Many of the jobs created were temporary jobs which show up as "jobs" created but then eventually disappear.

See that big spike in May of 2010?  The US gov't hired 225,000 census worker around that time.  Those were government paid workers (out of the taxpayer's pockets) that did not really add to the economy of the United States. Then see the drop in June, that's when many of them got laid off.  Temps jobs are not a way to fix the economy.

Even if we ignore this, he still has a LONG way to go to even get back to zero jobs lost from the day he took over from Bush.

And the other problem with this graph is how it's displayed.  It has this big uptick at the end.  That's fine.  It's accurate.  But it makes it look as if Obama has "fixed" the issue.

If you graph this not as jobs lost per month but as cumulative jobs lost it has a steep down slide under Bush, a slightly less steep downward slide under Obama from 1/09 to 3/10 and then a very slightly upward slope 10/3 to 5/11.  It's a net trend down.  if you saw that in your 401(k) you would not say, "oh things are getting better".  You'd say, "crap, I've lost a ton of money"

Finally this graph conveniently only shows Bush's last year in office

This paints a truer picture.... (ETA: typos and for clarity)