How Soon It Fades (Ben Smith & Byron York)

[Bloggingheads]

[ImprecisePsychic]

Byron, you bring up "this odd little sub-genre regarding Perry's manliness" that we're seeing in some of the press.

The fascination for 'manliness' is most sickening to me when it's coming from the arbiters of all things manly: Ann Althouse and Peggy Noonan.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by ImprecisePsychic

Byron, you bring up "this odd little sub-genre regarding Perry's manliness" that we're seeing in some of the press.

The fascination for 'manliness' is most sickening to me when it's coming from the arbiters of all things manly: Ann Althouse and Peggy Noonan.

Does Ann Althouse talk a lot about manliness? I don't follow her that closely. If so, why does it sicken you?

[chamblee54]

The New Yorker article on Mrs. Bachmann had some interesting information about her "career" as a "tax lawyer". It seems like she spent a great deal of time on maternity leave. (The IRS had a generous policy.) She was not taken seriously by her co workers in that office.
Is maternity leave an entitlement? Is this the sort of program Mrs. Bachmann would cut? Or, did G-d tell her, through her husband, that having babies was more important than being a tax lawyer?
chamblee54

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by chamblee54

The New Yorker article on Mrs. Bachmann had some interesting information about her "career" as a "tax lawyer". It seems like she spent a great deal of time on maternity leave. (The IRS had a generous policy.) She was not taken seriously by her co workers in that office.
Is maternity leave an entitlement? Is this the sort of program Mrs. Bachmann would cut? Or, did G-d tell her, through her husband, that having babies was more important than being a tax lawyer?
chamblee54

This couldn't possibly be news to anyone who is paying attention. For the NewYorker to spend ten pages covering this is a colossal waste of time, especially for the reader unless that person also enjoys watching train wrecks.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

This couldn't possibly be news to anyone who is paying attention. For the NewYorker to spend ten pages covering this is a colossal waste of time, especially for the reader unless that person also enjoys watching train wrecks.

That's a deeply strange thing to have said about news coverage wrt the career of a major figure in the Republican Presidential primary leadup. Certainly it's true that not everyone has been paying attention up 'til now, and it's just as certain that this is illuminating and useful.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

That's a deeply strange thing to have said about news coverage wrt the career of a major figure in the Republican Presidential primary leadup. Certainly it's true that not everyone has been paying attention up 'til now, and it's just as certain that this is illuminating and useful.

Well you know me, deeply strange R us.

Everyone knows Michelle Bachmann is seriously light weight, especially people who read the New Yorker. Besides, I doubt anyone who reads that magazine would vote for her. It's purely schadenfreude...but they're entitled.

[Hal Morris]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

... unless that person also enjoys watching train wrecks.

Isn't that what half the news is about?

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Hal Morris

Isn't that what half the news is about?

Yeah, I made a comment a couple of threads back about the monday morning after the S&P downgrade. Every channel had it's camera turned to the opening bell. Reality TV!

[bkjazfan]

Title of an article in the L.A. Times: "On day 938 of his presidency, Obama says he'll have a jobs program in a month or so."

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by bkjazfan

Title of an article in the L.A. Times: "On day 938 of his presidency, Obama says he'll have a jobs program in a month or so."

Some things just can't be rushed.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Some things just can't be rushed.

This is not at all an excuse for Obama, as I agree he should have had a jobs program long ago, but the congressional GOP has no plan and no plan to have a plan.

So, better late than never, I suppose.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by miceelf

, but the congressional GOP has no plan and no plan to have a plan.

I guess that's because they don't think it's the government's job to provide jobs.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I guess that's because they don't think it's the government's job to provide jobs.

In that case, they wouldn't be blaming Obama for not creating jobs.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by apple

In that case, they wouldn't be blaming Obama for not creating jobs.

Are they actually doing that?

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Are they actually doing that?

I presume you have never heard Boehner's "where are the jobs?"-line http://www.speaker.gov/News/Document...umentID=250525

Or this: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61576.html

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by apple

I presume you have never heard Boehner's "where are the jobs?"-line http://www.speaker.gov/News/Document...umentID=250525

Or this: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61576.html

The American people are still asking the question: where are the jobs? Today’s report is more evidence that the misguided ‘stimulus’ spending binge, excessive regulations, and an overwhelming national debt continue to hold back private-sector job creation in our country. Legislation that raises taxes on small business job creators, fails to cut spending by a larger amount than a debt limit hike, or fails to restrain future spending will only make things worse – and won’t pass the House. Republicans are focused on jobs, and are ready to stop Washington from spending money it doesn’t have and make serious changes to the way we spend taxpayer dollars. We hope our Democratic counterparts will join us and seize this opportunity to do something big for our economy and our future, and help get Americans back to work.”

I think Boehner is talking about the government getting out of the way...not creating jobs. The only jobs the government creates are government jobs and you know how republicans feel about those.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I think Boehner is talking about the government getting out of the way...not creating jobs. The only jobs the government creates are government jobs and you know how republicans feel about those.

If you looked at the second link, you'd know that your interpretation is false. Nonetheless, people tend not to make a distinction between 'creating' government jobs and creating jobs in general. For example, Perry is supposedly creating jobs in Texas. So why are Republicans asking where the jobs are? Apparently, Obama should be doing something to create jobs, and he isn't.

Of course, the dirty truth is that they're just trying to make political hay about something, when they knew that they don't have the cure for the unemployment problem. This is normal for politicians.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by apple

Nonetheless, people tend not to make a distinction between 'creating' government jobs and creating jobs in general.

I do. It's stupid not to.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I do. It's stupid not to.

It's stupid to regard any job as having been "created" by the person in the position of the executive at any given time. Of course, that doesn't prevent people from believing that Bill Clinton is a great president, just because his presidency happened to coincide with a period when private enterprises created many new jobs - as if he played any significant role in that.

That is also why it's stupid to attack Obama for not creating enough jobs.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by apple

That is also why it's stupid to attack Obama for not creating enough jobs.

Again, I'd like you to show me where the republicans are doing that. I'm not saying they aren't but I'm not aware of it.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Again, I'd like you to show me where the republicans are doing that. I'm not saying they aren't but I'm not aware of it.

I've quoted it. It's also ridiculous to attack him for supposedly standing in the way of job creation, when the laws are similar to when Bush was president, and I didn't hear Republicans say that the current laws were a problem back then, not even when he was the first president to lose jobs since Herbert Hoover (in his first term)

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by apple

I've quoted it.

not really, but never mond.

It's also ridiculous to attack him for supposedly standing in the way of job creation, when the laws are similar to when Bush was president, and I didn't hear Republicans say that the current laws were a problem back then, not even when he was the first president to lose jobs since Herbert Hoover (in his first term

I don't know about the Herbert Hoover or Bush, but I would say that one real way that Obama has stood in the way of job creation is the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I don't know about the Herbert Hoover or Bush, but I would say that one real way that Obama has stood in the way of job creation is the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

I am not aware of any way Obamacare stands in the way of job creation, because it has no effect on employers.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by apple

I am not aware of any way Obamacare stands in the way of job creation, because it has no effect on employers.

I think you need to read up a little on this. If you are interested I can supply you with lots of links.

[Diane1976]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

not really, but never mond.



I don't know about the Herbert Hoover or Bush, but I would say that one real way that Obama has stood in the way of job creation is the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

I don't get how Obama's health care reforms prevented the creation of jobs. In Canada we have an unusual situation where our economy seems to be doing better than the US, our money is closer to par or better, and our unemployment rate is lower, which as far as I know has not happened in years, if ever. Normally, we assume that if the US economy goes bad ours will be worse, because they're integrated. Some people say it's because of our resource based economy, oil, etc., but for a hundred years we've been told this makes us poorer than the US, i.e. we are doomed to be "hewers of wood and drawers of water". All of a sudden, that's not a bad thing. I can't explain this, but how Obama's health care reforms would have anything to do with it, is beyond me. Canada already has what Americans would consider a completely socialist health system.

I do agree with what I think you said earlier, that whether you have a slightly more liberal or conservative government hardly matters much since the basic economic system never changes no matter what government is in power. And, that's just as well because there is no other one that we would consider any better. I do think different governments have a long term effect on the overall quality of life of the population and the values the country reflects. And they play a role in mitigating the harsher effects of the free market system and ensuring some reasonable level of equality.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Diane1976

I don't get how Obama's health care reforms prevented the creation of jobs. In Canada we have an unusual situation where our economy seems to be doing better than the US, our money is closer to par or better, and our unemployment rate is lower, which as far as I know has not happened in years, if ever. Normally, we assume that if the US economy goes bad ours will be worse, because they're integrated. Some people say it's because of our resource based economy, oil, etc., but for a hundred years we've been told this makes us poorer than the US, i.e. we are doomed to be "hewers of wood and drawers of water". All of a sudden, that's not a bad thing. I can't explain this, but how Obama's health care reforms would have anything to do with it, is beyond me. Canada already has what Americans would consider a completely socialist health system.

Yeah, I think Canada's current good standing is neither because of nor in spite of it's vastly superior (for 98% of the population) health care system.

Rather, I suspect it's because Canada's banking system, through a combination of more aggressive regulation and the cultural aversion Canadians have to risk, weathered the storm that battered the US.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by miceelf

Yeah, I think Canada's current good standing is neither because of nor in spite of it's vastly superior (for 98% of the population) health care system.

Rather, I suspect it's because Canada's banking system, through a combination of more aggressive regulation and the cultural aversion Canadians have to risk, weathered the storm that battered the US.

I suspect it has something to do with oil at $80 a barrel and central Canadian oil sands, and a population of 30 million people.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

I suspect it has something to do with oil at $80 a barrel and central Canadian oil sands, and a population of 30 million people.

In addition, I thought they got their spending under control in the 90s, but I could be wrong about this.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

In addition, I thought they got their spending under control in the 90s, but I could be wrong about this.

If so, that's actually a point in favor of their health care system being a positive.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

I suspect it has something to do with oil at $80 a barrel and central Canadian oil sands, and a population of 30 million people.

Texas.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

not really, but never mond.



I don't know about the Herbert Hoover or Bush, but I would say that one real way that Obama has stood in the way of job creation is the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

Yes, the ACA is reaching back in time from 2014 when most of it will be implemented to kill jobs now through mechanisms that are unclear and impossible to measure. That's definitely a reasonable interpretation of the evidence.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

Yes, the ACA is reaching back in time from 2014 when most of it will be implemented to kill jobs now through mechanisms that are unclear and impossible to measure. That's definitely a reasonable interpretation of the evidence.

Yeah, uncertainty about what the legislation will mean, what the actual legislation involves and so many waivers one wonders who the heck is keeping track of them wouldn't be a problem to any business person who is deciding whether to hire or to keep what she has in place.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

Yes, the ACA is reaching back in time from 2014 when most of it will be implemented to kill jobs now through mechanisms that are unclear and impossible to measure. That's definitely a reasonable interpretation of the evidence.

Absolutely. Any legitimate, successful business plans in advance. If you start to expand your business now, finish expansion and hiring in 2012, you need to consider the liability the ACA is going to be in 2014. It is only two years away.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Absolutely. Any legitimate, successful business plans in advance. If you start to expand your business now, finish expansion and hiring in 2012, you need to consider the liability the ACA is going to be in 2014. It is only two years away.

Sigh. OK, fine. Let's stipulate that this is actually going on. If so, they what are some objective economic indicators that might result from this dynamic? Wouldn't we expect a spike in unemployment following the ACA's enactment in 2010? Wouldn't we also expect higher rates of job creation in other countries that didn't pass new liberal legislation in 2009 and 2010? Is there any emperical evidence at all that you can point to to prove that this is happening?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

Sigh. OK, fine. Let's stipulate that this is actually going on. If so, they what are some objective economic indicators that might result from this dynamic? Wouldn't we expect a spike in unemployment following the ACA's enactment in 2010?

Perhaps. Or we would expect to see a drag on employment, where this negative factor helps to balance out positive factors which would otherwise lower the unemployment rate. We arguably are seeing that.

Wouldn't we also expect higher rates of job creation in other countries that didn't pass new liberal legislation in 2009 and 2010?

You mean the BRICs? I think we have seen higher rates of job creation there, no?

Is there any emperical evidence at all that you can point to to prove that this is happening?

No, because legitimate economic analysis requires some time between the enactment of the law and rigorous study of effects. I have anecdotal evidence already, though. And I have a healthy suspicion of federal intervention in markets.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Perhaps. Or we would expect to see a drag on employment, where this negative factor helps to balance out positive factors which would otherwise lower the unemployment rate. We arguably are seeing that.

No, we're not. Your theory implies that we would see a sharp change in economic indicators following the passage of the ACA. After all, if this is all about the expectations of entrepreneurs, then those expectations would change dramatically upon passage of the bill. So if I were to look up new jobs created in, say, the three months prior to the ACA's passage and the three months following, the latter would have weaker numbers, right? Oh, wait. It turns out that if you look at the data you see the exact opposite.

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

You mean the BRICs? I think we have seen higher rates of job creation there, no?

No, I mean every other country on the globe that didn't pass a universal health care bill in late 2009. But if you look at the data, you see a couple of things. First, there's a lot of statistical noise and variation from country to country that can be spun by ideologues to say any damn thing they want. And second, you see that high and sustained unemployment is a global problem that doesn't correlate with how people pay for health care.

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

No, because legitimate economic analysis requires some time between the enactment of the law and rigorous study of effects. I have anecdotal evidence already, though. And I have a healthy suspicion of federal intervention in markets.

Oh, well if you've got anecdotal evidence and pre-existing ideological commitments, I guess that's plenty good enough. I take it all back. it's obviously Obama's job-killing future policies, not something silly like weak aggregate demand or consumer debt. My bad.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

First, there's a lot of statistical noise and variation from country to country that can be spun by ideologues to say any damn thing they want. And second, you see that high and sustained unemployment is a global problem that doesn't correlate with how people pay for health care.

Countries by unemployment rate:

1.9% Singapore
2.9% Switzerland
3.7% South Korea
4.1% China
4.9% Japan
4.9% Australia

6.0% Germany
7.6% United Kingdom
8.1% Italy *
9.1% United States
9.5% France (for the past 20 years)
12.4% Portugal *
14.0% Ireland *
15.0% Greece *
20.9% Spain *

* PIIGS

[Don Zeko]

When did Germany join that acronym?

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

When did Germany join that acronym?

Fixed. I've had Germany on my mind because of the proposed Euro Bonds. They are so screwed.