US POLITICS SPRING 2011: Let's just call off this country.

Not sure at what point in the election cycle you hit the point of no return with the economy, but Obama must be flirting with it by now:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/08/news/economy/june_jobs_report_unemployment/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1

I don't know. In June of 2007, the 2008 election was all about Iraq. Events do follow their own course.

is that number the net total (ie, jobs added - jobs lost)?

I think it's just jobs added--i.e., I keep hearing that something like 150,000 new jobs are required each month to break even.

so what is the difference between this report and the one reference here:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/07/news/economy/jobs_claims_ADP/index.htm?iid=HP_LN&iid=EL

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The job market got two optimistic signs Thursday as private sector employers added 157,000 positions in June and fewer people filed new claims for unemployment benefits, according to two reports.

Payroll processing company ADP said private jobs grew rapidly in June -- a figure that was much higher than expected and more than four times higher than the prior month. May's figures were downwardly revised to 36,000 jobs.

What would it take for someone to challenge Obama for the Democratic nomination? Or is that simply not done anymore? (Last one I'm aware of was Ted Kennedy in 1980.) Granted, I'm not sure who would be positioned to do such a thing, especially since there doesn't seem to be enough public outcry against Obama from the left.

Your story is dated yesterday, mine's dated today. They're both from CNN Money. One says hello, the other goodbye. I'm totally confused.

ah I should have read to the end of the article I linked:

The Challenger and ADP reports typically set the tone for the government's highly anticipated monthly employment data, which will be released Friday morning. After weak jobs growth in May, economists and traders aren't expecting much better results from June's numbers.

Economists surveyed by CNNMoney are expecting the report to show 120,000 jobs added to payrolls. Typically, the economy needs to add about 150,000 just to keep pace with population growth.

look at how beautifully the last sentence of that first paragraph contradicts the first sentence of the second, btw

the main takeaway I'm getting here is that no one knows the fuck what's going on

I don't think a new Dem president would make much of a difference. What we need is a new ruling class, with new values.

I don't think those two sentences are contradictory if you keep that 150,000 figure in mind; as measured against that, 120,000 wouldn't be much better than 36,000, in the sense that both yield a net loss. What I find confusing is the line "The job market got two optimistic signs Thursday as private sector employers added 157,000 positions in June and fewer people filed new claims for unemployment benefits, according to two reports." This is written as a statement of fact, not as a projection--how does that jibe with the figure of 18,000 that came out today?

Weird, yesterday they were saying job numbers would look good and this morning they're saying they're not.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/opinion/08krugman.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212

Meanwhile Krugman criticizes Obama's Hooveresque talk and his debt strategy and suggests Congressional Dems should not go along:

I don’t believe that it’s all political calculation. Watching Mr. Obama and listening to his recent statements, it’s hard not to get the impression that he is now turning for advice to people who really believe that the deficit, not unemployment, is the top issue facing America right now, and who also believe that the great bulk of deficit reduction should come from spending cuts. It’s worth noting that even Republicans weren’t suggesting cuts to Social Security; this is something Mr. Obama and those he listens to apparently want for its own sake.

Which raises the big question: If a debt deal does emerge, and it overwhelmingly reflects conservative priorities and ideology, should Democrats in Congress vote for it?

Mr. Obama’s people will no doubt argue that their fellow party members should trust him, that whatever deal emerges was the best he could get. But it’s hard to see why a president who has gone out of his way to echo Republican rhetoric and endorse false conservative views deserves that kind of trust.

we also need a new constitution

Concentrated pressure from a functioning left wing is more realistic; but we've proven over the years that we've absorbed the GOP's insistence on our being outliers and thus have never organized with their force and precision.

I think it's just jobs added--i.e., I keep hearing that something like 150,000 new jobs are required each month to break even.

economically I am the most ignorant dude who ever lived but this is the sort of thing when I hear it that makes me think - wait - there's just no way - that's gotta be unsustainable - at some point the whole machine's gotta break, if 150,000 jobs have to be created every month to break even

just thinkin out loud I have been getting this shit explained to me since high school and the seed of economic reason can find no purchase in my thick skull

I signed the Moveon.org petition opposing Social Security Cuts, and the Moveon.org and People for the American Way petitions to get Elizabeth Warren a recess appointment, and Obama and the media ignored it.

"I opposed the Obama debt deal and all I got was this lousy t-shirt"

no i was wondering the same thing. to 'break even' does that entail that 150,000 jobs are /lost/ every month as well? (xp to aero)

I got in another argument this weekend with stupid liberals who wanted to chortle over Bachmann's latest outrage. "Never MIND what she said. Did you hear the stupid shit the President said last week?" I said to one.

http://minnesotaindependent.com/83979/bachmann-signs-pledge-to-ban-all-pornography-as-president

I mean, when the fireworks are that big, it's hard not to gawk.

From the article above: "Typically, the economy needs to add about 150,000 just to keep pace with population growth."

I don't know what part of that number belongs to immigration, the net difference between new retirees and people turning 18 (I assume that's the age where you enter this equation), etc.

Vow 9 stipulates that the candidate must “support human protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy”

huh?

economically I am the most ignorant dude who ever lived but this is the sort of thing when I hear it that makes me think - wait - there's just no way - that's gotta be unsustainable - at some point the whole machine's gotta break, if 150,000 jobs have to be created every month to break even

those 150,000 jobs that have to get created each month traditionally provided a triple benefit to the system: workers to produce stuff, who now have paychecks with which to buy other stuff, and who will stay off the government benefit system.

we've reached a funny place with all this i think. in the classic marxist critique of capitalism, after a certain point capitalists accumulate and concentrate enough assets that a panic sets in about what to do with it all. in c20 the answer to this for awhile was "make more stuff", with a concomitant obligation to persuade people to buy it. people's needs were mainly satisfied already so new needs had to be created. hence, mad men. but eventually people didn't have enough money to keep buying the ever-expanding universe of stuff they were supposed to be buying, so when the rising tide stopped lifting all boats in the 1970s and wages stagnated, mass debt and financialization became the only way to keep the machine running. and developing countries just aren't developing fast enough to buy our shit (besides, their own countries seem to be making lots of what they need, anyway). and now that's crashed. but there's no other solution. i can't help thinking that the debt bubble simply has to be inflated again because otherwise, who will buy the snowglobes of yesteryear, gathering dust in a maquiladora warehouse?

(fwiw half of this is just poorly remembered chapters from "the affluent society")

anyway if we're now living in a world where massive debt is no longer the driver of our economy, the entire concept of excess capital and overproduction has to be rethought

After reading that, I've now decided that, economically, I am the most ignorant dude who ever lived. (Where do the Pet Shop Boys fit into all of this?)

after a certain point capitalists accumulate and concentrate enough assets that a panic sets in about what to do with it all

At which point, we start buying people. Duh.

they're shopping xpost

hah Eric i sort of wonder if it's not the opposite, that without the ability to pile up massive debts the-American-people-as-workers-and-consumers have become irrelevant. who'd want to buy them?

http://minnesotaindependent.com/83979/bachmann-signs-pledge-to-ban-all-pornography-as-president

― ephendophile (Eric H.), Friday, July 8, 2011 2:15 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

yall realize that even in crazy evangelical, which i speak, that's not what "point 9" of this pledge is saying?

and elmo, "human protection" is a typo--it's "humane protection" in the document.

not that i am defending these batshit fux in any way

Was gonna say...

Ugh, hate it so much when right wing batshittery is needlessly distorted, as if plainly reporting the contents of that pledge wouldn't be wacky enough.

I didn't write the URL. I'm way more interested in the part of the pledge that vows homosexuality is a choice.

yeah i saw this last night and was already thinking "ok libernet can we skip to the part where we all acknowledge that A) this doesn't actually say she wants to ban porn B) it kinda looks like it does, which is a totally untenable position for someone calling herself a "constitutional conservative," which means whichever staffer ok'd signing off on this probably didn't even read the whole thing, which is where the real lol is

bachmann is batshit, but she's a way, way better politician than palin and would know better than to sign off on something that so clearly violates her own principles

and yeah eric obviously this whole thing is crazy and indefensible for any number of reasons, i just hate the outrage cycle

never counter-outrage, I get it

the point i'm making is that the coverage i've seen and the coverage i expect to see will focus on the porn aspect, and that aspect isn't real. there are better things to focus on, as you're pointing out.

I just opened up the PDF of the pledge. #1: "Personal fidelity to my spouse." That rules out, what, a third to a half of office-holders in both parties?

why is "personal" in that phrase

I think it was Towleroad noted that it was an interesting (if bald) rhetorical move to tie homophobia (which seems to have waning influence as a conservative platform) up in this document with Sharia law, since urrybody's still scared of Muslims, et al.

either way, of course, this is all to scare the libs angry with Obama into giving him the keys to the Oval Office for another four years...

Don't let it happen, people. We must continue to focus on not voting for Obama in 2012.

it's an interesting document, yes. i wouldn't worry about 'strategy' stuff regarding it too much. it's an artifact.

The angry left on this thread can speak for themselves, but I would have thought by now that they'd already made up their mind to a) grin and bear it with Obama, b) sit 2012 out, or c) vote third-party. Do things like the Bachmann story make any difference at all?

The Family Leader, run by Bob Vander Plaats, has positioned itself as one of the most powerful Republican groups in the run up to the Iowa caucuses.

this is the guy who got the iowa supreme court bounced after the gay marriage decision

(Except for d) Morbius, who's planning something much more far-reaching...some grand plan on the order of Dr. Evil.)

clemenza, you've implied several times an equivalence between the "angry left" and the angry right, as if both were stains on civilized discourse. This is a serious misreading of American political history. The left hasn't held anything approaching influence since the mid sixties, so, yeah, there's a lot to be angry about. There's simply no equivalence between the right wing noise you hear every day on cable news and talk radio and one Rachel Maddow or Glenn Greenwald.

and part of my frustration is you've refused to explain your own political convictions.

Agreed! It's not a judgemental tag at all, just descriptive: there are people on the left-most spectrum of the Democratic Party who are very angry with Obama. That's all.

I doubt I'll bother voting for Obama cuz he's pretty much a lock to carry California. I expect this will be one of those Presidential election cycles where my vote essentially doesn't matter.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/07/obama%E2%80%99s-original-sin/

barry ritholtz's take on the frank rich piece

I'm on my way out to see that New York Times documentary, but my political convictions, such as they are, basically amount to a) I always vote Liberal in my own elections, b) I'd always vote Democratic if I were American, because the other side's worse (today, anyway--go back a few decades, and I might have been more flexible), and c) as 49-year-old elementary school teacher in Canada who's got almost zero percent chance of ever losing his job, I obviously feel more detached personally from American politics than most of the people who post on this board. Which doesn't mean I don't take a great interest in American politics, which is why I post (and why I wrote a few thousand words on my own site as the 2008 election unfolded).

Yeah, the Vander Plaats connection is what got my attention too. Fuck that guy for realz.