Question for those of you who support the reelection of Barack Obama.... on the Peoria.com Forums - Page 2

@meanjarhead

You won't. Rand Paul lost my support when he got on his knees for flawed mainstream Republican ideology. I don't find him that bright either, He "justified" his support for Romney by saying he agrees with Romney on "fiscal" issues, but not Foreign policy. Apparently, Rand is too daft to draw the line between fiscal and foreign policy. You can't have sound fiscal policies without sound foreign policies. The Republican infatuation for WARS and growing the American Empire is very very costly, At the rate the Republicans were going when Bush went out the door, I find it almost unfathomable that they can even talk fiscal responsibility.

@Pock:

So how do you feel about pizza and beer?

@Pock:

So how do you feel about pizza and beer?

@meanjarhead:

lol. I'm on a diet.. how about Diet Pepsi and conversation? lol

@JnJ:

It would depend on a number of other things. Like...

Why is unemployment where it is at?

What are the proposed solutions? Are they politically feasible?

There is no hard number.

Historically... it is quite possible for a nation to do well even with 8% or even 10% unemployment. I think there are a lot of people in our current political environment who think that the target should be getting back to the 4.4% we had in 2007. That is unrealistic and irresponsible. Every recession has been preceded by a deep trough of low unemployment. That isn't a sign of a healthy economy but rather one with excess in need of correction.

Every economy has a certain level of unemployment that is structurally built into it's nature. Where that magic number is I don't know but I do know it changes with time and can vary by nation and geography. Years ago back in college, we talked about 6-7% unemployment as being a normal healthy range for the USA. Most European nations had rates in the 8-10% range, it was considered 'healthy' for their economic situations.

Reports say that in June we were at 8.2% nationally. Why? Who are they?

Are we talking about people impacted by the collapse of new home construction? Who had been building homes in a hyper inflated market? If so, they are going to be there longer than most other folks would like. Which would suggest that maybe we have a structural shift in what a normal unemployment rate should be. No I am not suggesting that 8.2% is a-ok. We may be much closer to 'normal' than most folks realize.

To ask "How high would unemployment have to go before you would reconsider? " is a gross over simplification. It would suggest that your candidate and his supporters are not too interested in solutions or know full well that their 'solutions' would not satisfy the public.

The recession of 1981, began in July of 1982, ended in November of 1982. In June of 1982, unemployment stood at 9.6%. In November of 1982 it soared to 10.4%. It would be over a year before unemployment got back down to the June rate. Unemployment remained high during the early part of the recovery. It would not be until May of 1984 that unemployment got back down to below the pre-recession rate of 7.5%. (19 months of growth).

The recession of 1981 was not nearly as deep and traumatic as the one in 2008.

We have had ... 25 months of growth. From a big picture stand point, I think we are doing ok. Not great... but ok. There are factors dragging us down but they are not in Washington.

Mahnko...I don't think a serious answer was the point of this thread.

Bitch all you want about President Obama.
It is my opinion, that 8 years of Dubya, followed by a McCain/Palin win.
would have put us all in the soupline, and digging foxholes, for domiciles, and shelter from the locaal year long weather.

Now you want to put a classicaly schooled Reaganite into the Oval Office.
That pissed off two of our stauchest allies, out of three, during a foreign vists, abroad.
And is probably causing an impending war, between Isreal & Palstine.

Behold the Mormon at The Wailing Wall.
Romney says
"We shoud have stopped in Metro Peoria, Brigham, before Asian Carp. These are people that are servile to our Cooly Wow. That have the worst radio stations of the planet, and love them.""



* This message has been revised.

My wife was downsized from her job 6 months before Obama was even elected. She was able to get another job, but it is in retail, at half the wage she had before, and no health benefits until 19 months later. She has been employed there 4 years now, and has tried to get back into her field. But no takers. (I think some of it is age discrimination, but how to prove it?)

* This message has been revised.

@Delbert:

Do you smoke the same stuff as Lathan? You make about as much sense as her.

I retired from smoking Reefer, when President Nancy Reagan, got the Drug Free Workplace Act
passed back in the Eighties.

You classic Peorian.

* This message has been revised.

@Delbert:

Guess again Manson.

@leslie110:

since I orginated the thread I'm the only one qualified to say that that isn't true.

In regards to Mahknos comment, for purposes of this discussion, I think one would have to consider the REAL unemployment rate which has been estimated around 16%. Is that, in your opinion, an acceptable and normal aberration?

Based on the number of jobs that have moved to other countries, I'd say it's not surprising

So, to clarify...

1) The government is not responsible for creating jobs. I've heard Rep. Aaron Schock say this at public events a few times, and it seems to be the general conservative consensus.
2) The president is responsible for high unemployment rates. That seemed to be the impetus behind the initial posting; in fact, the post asks if respondents have a certain threshold for the unemployment rate before a regime change.

How can both of those points be true simultaneously?