The shorter Obama town hall on health care:
I was for single payer before I was now and always against it.
The AARP has endorsed my bill, or some bill, or something. I wish. (Obama may have killed a few grandmothers with that misinformation.)
We need a public option which will be as lame as the Post Office in order to keep the insurance companies honest. (I am not a Columbia/Harvard genius so I don't see how this analogy is helpful to Obama's case; I predict his supporters go postal on this.)
You will not be waiting in any lines. (Lines? ObamaCare promises waiting rooms replete with back issues of TIME and Newsweek.)
The AARP has endorsed my bill, or some bill, or something. I wish. (Obama may have killed a few grandmothers with that misinformation.)
We need a public option which will be as lame as the Post Office in order to keep the insurance companies honest. (I am not a Columbia/Harvard genius so I don't see how this analogy is helpful to Obama's case; I predict his supporters go postal on this.)
You will not be waiting in any lines. (Lines? ObamaCare promises waiting rooms replete with back issues of TIME and Newsweek.)
That said, I thought I saw the engaging Obama that won the election last fall, not the arrogant despot that has been on offer lately.
And all that was in front of a friendly audience with Dems sending in the reinforcments for softball questions.
"Speak loudly, and carry a small victim..."
Posted by: RichatUF | August 11, 2009 at 10:38 PM
so when does the political prevarication become simple pathological lying? LUN
Posted by: matt | August 11, 2009 at 10:39 PM
I prefer the "long form Obama" vs the "short form"
Posted by: vinman | August 11, 2009 at 10:41 PM
Obama should have held onto his seat in the US Senate so he could introduce his own legislation, which doubtless would have been a model of clarity and concision to say nothing of wisdom and sagacity. If you want something done well, don't ask the House Democratic caucus.
Posted by: Elliott | August 11, 2009 at 10:48 PM
I've often wondered about that Elliot, I think he didn't because well it would have been out of character with everything else he does. One gets the impression this is exactly the bill he wanted, it has all his tics and obsessions therein, a contempt of the medical establishment, eugenic elements,
a Malthusian motivation in all these procedures.
Posted by: narciso | August 11, 2009 at 10:56 PM
Nice post TM. This is so much easier, and more fun, than defending Bush.
Posted by: Terry Gain | August 11, 2009 at 11:04 PM
MM confirms, sort of I guess, that the 11 year old softball thrower was a plant from an Obama operative. Stay classy Dems.
Posted by: RichatUF | August 11, 2009 at 11:10 PM
Sure TM, you did see Obama in campaign mode. Just like during the campaign when he was in a room full of supporters.
DUH
Posted by: bad | August 11, 2009 at 11:22 PM
RichatUF,
Thanks for that MM link to using that little girl like a pawn. Sort of makes the Obama "Don't use kids as pawns" outrage this mornings post seem a tad disingenuous.
Posted by: daddy | August 11, 2009 at 11:33 PM
Tonight we were in the DQ getting fatter when our friend who owns the local Chrysler dealership came in. (He had some lame story about how his wife was out in the car and the large chocolate cone was for her...)
Jane, I've got a story for you to tell the next time you are on the radio: 23-year-old guy, not much money, with a new baby, and his car broke down and can't be repaired. Our friend is desperately searching for a cheap reliable car for this young family, and can't find anything. This guy has been riding his bicycle to his job, an hour and a half each way. He hasn't been late yet.
Way to go, Obama.
Posted by: cathyf | August 11, 2009 at 11:34 PM
And as for AARP, O'Reilly last night was grilling the AARP top Legal guy who was adamant in saying AARP was absolutely, positively not endorsing The Health Care proposal, regardless of the Pelosi e-mail O'Reilly was holding in his hand essentially stating that they were. What a curious circumstance that both the President and the Speaker of the House are both so clueless as to imagine that AARP has endorsed the Health Plan. Must be tough keeping facts straight what with that all that hi-falutin' education in their heads.
Posted by: daddy | August 11, 2009 at 11:45 PM
Add to that that Isakson threw Obama under the bus...
“This is what happens when the President and members of Congress don’t read the bills. The White House and others are merely attempting to deflect attention from the intense negativity caused by their unpopular policies. I never consulted with the White House in this process and had no role whatsoever in the House Democrats’ bill. I categorically oppose the House bill and find it incredulous that the White House and others would use my amendment as a scapegoat for their misguided policies,” Isakson said. “My Senate amendment simply puts health care choices back in the hands of the individual and allows them to consider if they so choose a living will or durable power of attorney. The House provision is merely another ill-advised attempt at more government mandates, more government intrusion, and more government involvement in what should be an individual choice.”
Obama sure told alot of whoppers today...
LUN
Posted by: Stephanie | August 12, 2009 at 12:04 AM
Paglia has another mostly good column..
Blaming obstructionist Republicans is nonsensical because Democrats control all three branches of government. It isn't conservative rumors or lies that are stopping healthcare legislation; it's the justifiable alarm of an electorate that has been cut out of the loop and is watching its representatives construct a tangled labyrinth for others but not for themselves. No, the airheads of Congress will keep their own plush healthcare plan -- it's the rest of us guinea pigs who will be thrown to the wolves.
...
And what do Democrats stand for, if they are so ready to defame concerned citizens as the "mob" -- a word betraying a Marie Antoinette delusion of superiority to ordinary mortals. I thought my party was populist, attentive to the needs and wishes of those outside the power structure. And as a product of the 1960s, I thought the Democratic party was passionately committed to freedom of thought and speech.
But somehow liberals have drifted into a strange servility toward big government, which they revere as a godlike foster father-mother who can dispense all bounty and magically heal all ills. The ethical collapse of the left was nowhere more evident than in the near total silence of liberal media and Web sites at the Obama administration's outrageous solicitation to private citizens to report unacceptable "casual conversations" to the White House. If Republicans had done this, there would have been an angry explosion by Democrats from coast to coast. I was stunned at the failure of liberals to see the blatant totalitarianism in this incident, which the president should have immediately denounced. His failure to do so implicates him in it.
Ouch!!!
And she calls for Pelosi's head.
LUN
Posted by: Stephanie | August 12, 2009 at 12:27 AM
Obama also confessed that the government regulated
insurance was good enough for Obama and his family when
he was in the Senate -- and he used his wife's private insurance instead.
Here's a motto -- "Not good enough for me, but perfect for you."
Posted by: Greg Ransom | August 12, 2009 at 12:58 AM
Wasn't good enough ..
Posted by: Greg Ransom | August 12, 2009 at 12:59 AM
And the SEIU and other unions are endorsing this farce. Do their rank-and-files realize that when the opportunity presents itself, their own health care benefits will get turned over to Big Brother and rationed?
Posted by: Elroy Jetson | August 12, 2009 at 01:42 AM
Unbelievable. This">http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/08/11/cant-make-it-dem-rep-who-opposes-photo-id-vote-requiring-photo-id-town-h">This Newsmax story says a Texas Democrat Congress-critter is now demanding folks coming to Town Hall Health Care Meetings have to present photo ID to be eligible to enter---yet he has voted against folks having to present photo ID to vote. Amazing.
And in the comments, a remark (which you guys probably already know) that the little girl in Obama's New Hampshire Health Care Meeting isn't from New Hampshire, she's from Massachusetts.
So maybe that's your problem Jane. Your inability to get a Health Care meeting with your Congressman in Massachusetts is because he's in your own State. Obviously that's Astro-turfing. So try some other State, because as we all know, the Grassroots is always greener on the other side of the border.
Posted by: daddy | August 12, 2009 at 06:02 AM
"But somehow liberals have drifted into a strange servility toward big government, which they revere as a godlike foster father-mother who can dispense all bounty and magically heal all ills."
Since the majority of women (present company of women excluded) tend to vote Liberal it is not unusual for Liberals to drift 'into a strange servility toward big government'
As a lifelong female I have observed that my gender, no matter what rhetoric she espoused about empowerment, tends to demand that someone to take care of them.
Note the trend of older childless females buying sperm at the local sperm bank when she reaches 40, they don't want children they want insurance that someone will be there to take care of them in her old age.
Buying sperm aside, women have always drifted towards Big Govt Daddy who will take care of them.
It is clear why the majority of female voters got on their knees to slobber all over the smooth-talking-bad-boy, like all pimps do to keep their corral happy, he promised to pay her mortgage, gas, food, health care.
Posted by: syn | August 12, 2009 at 06:15 AM
AARP cold feet or just bucking for more goodies?
Obama said, "We have the AARP onboard because they know this is a good deal for our seniors."
But Tom Nelson, AARP's chief operating officer, said, "Indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate."
Posted by: Jim Ryan | August 12, 2009 at 06:54 AM
Camille's starting to disappoint me. Although she gets Palin exactly right her prior inability to see the lack of substance underneath the Bammer surface gloss is somewhat disturbing, although I suspect she'd appreciate the "clothes have no Emperor" line. And this "product of the 1960s" garbage really needs to be permanently discarded into some repository for mass delusions; for every Woodstock there was a counterbalancing Altamont and stifling debate has been a long-term strategy of the left. And praising Preznit DynOmite's presence in Caracas for repairing "the damage done to U.S. prestige by the feckless, buffoonish George W. Bush" is really painful to read in it's cloying mendacity.
Posted by: Captain Hate | August 12, 2009 at 07:09 AM
Concur completely Captain Hate.
Posted by: daddy | August 12, 2009 at 07:11 AM
Didn't read further, but like I say she's off my probation list, Daddy, BTW what's the reaction up there to the hogs slurping
at the energy funds trough
Posted by: narciso | August 12, 2009 at 07:27 AM
O/T I'd like Rick Ballard, OL, or some of the other resident economists to comment on the LUN WSJ article on how a majority of a survey of economists said the recession is over. If I'm reading those projected unemployment rates correctly, 2010 should be absolute carnage for the donks in the midterm elections.
Posted by: Captain Hate | August 12, 2009 at 07:37 AM
This is about as effective as the 9/10 dentists who chew gum survey right, first of all we didn't have negative growth in the spring of last year, so how could that constitute recession. I know, I'm terribly
literal about these sort of thingd
Posted by: narciso | August 12, 2009 at 07:47 AM
off topic - for the last 4 years I have participated in the America Supports You Freedom Walk here in D.C.. It was to remember 9-11, and to thank our troops. I've usually received an email by now reminding me...but not this year. Went in search of info, and it looks like there won't be one this year.
2005, the first walk, we had Clint Black perform at the end...and Rumsfeld was out shaking hands on the route.
Posted by: Janet | August 12, 2009 at 07:50 AM
well maybe my last post wasn't really off topic since we're talking about the decline of America and all...
Posted by: Janet | August 12, 2009 at 07:54 AM
The eleven year old girl cannot be blame,Obama probably threatened to put her granny in front of an End of Life Advisory Panel. Remember,under Obama Care your usefulness to society can be downgraded.
"Dats a noice liddle old lady you got der,shame sumptin' should happen to her".
Posted by: PeterUK | August 12, 2009 at 08:08 AM
Our friend is desperately searching for a cheap reliable car for this young family, and can't find anything.
Wow that just sucks. I'll put it in my notes Cathy
Matt, I loved your post.
So maybe that's your problem Jane. Your inability to get a Health Care meeting with your Congressman in Massachusetts is because he's in your own State.
Yesterday Dick promised to take care of it, because as you know, my rep (and everyone else in government) is his "very very very" good friend. We will see, but I want to do it on the air. The trick will be not being nasty.
Posted by: Jane | August 12, 2009 at 08:09 AM
Bammer is the "Great Black Hope" of multiculturalism. They simply cannot abandon him. It will take the Siberian troops outside the Berlin bunker before they let go.
Posted by: PeterUK | August 12, 2009 at 08:12 AM
Those economists (and they only surveyed 47, who knows who they are) are jumping the gun, as if "only" 247,000 jobs lost in July is some kind of recovery. The cash-for-clunkers is obviously just shifting forward some activity; auto sales will tank severely once the program is over.
The NBER has prematurely declared the ends of the last two recessions, especially the last one when employment continued to decline for something like a year after the recession supposedly ended.
Posted by: jimmyk | August 12, 2009 at 08:22 AM
first of all we didn't have negative growth in the spring of last year, so how could that constitute recession.
Well yes, I thought that Orwell would appreciate how they deviate from the actual definition of the term in making their prognosis. I understand that they're in a no-win situation regarding trying to pinpoint when something is actually over when you only know such things after the fact, but away from the headline of the article you realize that a lot of the surveyed economists don't agree with the majority. Plus I'd like to know what most of the optimists are basing that Pollyanish outlook on.
Posted by: Captain Hate | August 12, 2009 at 08:23 AM
I was wondering what the breakaway movement will be if socialized medicine passes.
Like:
public school failure - homeschooling grows
too many taxes - barter/cash transactions
unchecked crime - gated communities
unsecured borders - the minuteman organization
More and more people seem to be opting out of the government defined society and going it on their own.
Posted by: Janet | August 12, 2009 at 08:51 AM
"2005, the first walk,"
IMO, the Thank our troops program ended on 4 Nov 08. The present administration seems much more inclined to thank those fighting against our troops.
Posted by: Pagar | August 12, 2009 at 08:52 AM
CH--
The BLS is hiding 1 million adjustment to the job-loss numbers. Wait around a couple of months. It will appear.
Posted by: Fresh Air | August 12, 2009 at 09:32 AM
((Ouch!!!
And she calls for Pelosi's head.
))
Paglia has a bad case of cognitive dissonance. Nothwithstanding the dangerous faults she finds in 0, she still thinks he's grand, especially on the world stage no less.
Posted by: Parking Lot | August 12, 2009 at 09:35 AM
More and more people seem to be opting out of the government defined society and going it on their own.
Janet--
That is, in fact, the American way. Zero has no understanding of it. I'm sure he couldn't repair the flat to his bicycle any more than he could change the tire on his car.
Toqueville marveled at this. He was shocked that when a bridge went out in a rural town that the elders just got together and fixed it. In France, everyone waited around for help from Paris while the bridge sat unrepaired.
What you site are of course unintended consequences. There will be many, many others--as there always are whenever the Mediacrat idiots push the public into something radical.
Posted by: Fresh Air | August 12, 2009 at 09:36 AM
Ruth Marcus is on point.
LUN
Posted by: bad | August 12, 2009 at 09:38 AM
((AARP cold feet or just bucking for more goodies?))
Damage control. They fear losing a large chunk of their membership.
Posted by: Parking Lot | August 12, 2009 at 09:46 AM
cathyf's friend would be able to find a car more easily if weren't for cash=for=clunkers...
Posted by: bad | August 12, 2009 at 09:50 AM
When an obvious ally like AARP is vociferously going out of their way to say both the Speaker of the House and the President of the United States are wrong about the group supporting their legislation, you have a clear indication that this legislation is off the rails.
AARP which has not truly represented senior citizens for at least 10 years or more, is nothing more than a funnel for dues collected to be dropped into Democrat campaign coffers. Period. A small amount skims off the top to pay the top few folks wages, and that might be in serious peril if enough seniors figure out the scam.
On a happy note RAS is now out at :
48- 52.
A new low for support for Zero, and a new high is disapproval. It will continue because the Democrats against all logic are doubling down on their UNAMERICAN meme.
I love the smell of liberal sizzling in the morning.
Posted by: gmax | August 12, 2009 at 09:56 AM
Those economists (and they only surveyed 47, who knows who they are) are jumping the gun, as if "only" 247,000 jobs lost in July is some kind of recovery.
Yeah, and the bottom line is that it's a bit disingenuous. Even neglecting things like Krugman's ridiculous claims that it proves the stimulus is working, the job situation is hardly rainbows and butterflies:
Remember Bush's "jobless recovery," and what a crisis it was? I do: Back then the official (U3) rate was 5.8% and the total (U6) was 9.8%. Last month U3 was 9.4% and U6 was 16.8% . . . and we're supposed to see it as an improvement? It's pretty hard to see how the spinmeisters on the Dem side can hyperventilate about one rate, and then claim an improvement when the rate's >60% worse.Posted by: Cecil Turner | August 12, 2009 at 10:00 AM
Captain Hate-
Economists are basing a recovery on inventory builds and continued government spending. I'm skeptical of an inventories build thesis personally with unemployment still climbing and the slack in capacity utilization. The problem with government spending is that Federal money is just replacing money that states haven't been able to collect and going to areas that really won't add jobs (plusing up education budgets and funding UI and medicaid accounts).
However, with the Christmas season upon us and China printing money faster than Bernanke (this is about the time orders for Christmas go out) it is possible that the decline in inventories is arrested. In addition, oil has climbed strongly in Q3 which will put further pressure on trade accounts.
Posted by: RichatUF | August 12, 2009 at 10:01 AM
AARP which has not truly represented senior citizens for at least 10 years or more, is nothing more than a funnel for dues collected to be dropped into Democrat campaign coffers. Period. A small amount skims off the top to pay the top few folks wages,
There is no difference between the unions ripping off their members and the AARP ripping off their members. Both channel every dollar they can into the democrat coffers, all for the purpose of defeating America. A boycott of AARP is the easiest way to show disapproval of the direction the Obama Administration is leading America.
I urge everyone who is a member to send them notice of your resignation and make sure to explain why you are resigning. They are much more concerned about the Democrats than they are about seniors.
Posted by: Pagar | August 12, 2009 at 10:06 AM
gmax,
I agree with Parking Lot. It isn't like yesterday was the first time Obama made the AARP endorsement claim. He repeated it ad nauseum at his last prime time presser.
What was that, two weeks ago? Three? Did the AARP miss that?
Posted by: Blue Ox | August 12, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Shorter econotalk:
I think it would be premature to call an end to the recession in Q3 (esp. since the NBER used private employment as the determining factor to date the recession to Dec 07) and think with the disorderly increase in commodities and continuing weakness in employment the US could go into a deep double dip recession not unlike what we experienced in the late 1950's.
Posted by: RichatUF | August 12, 2009 at 10:09 AM
I would also like to know if the economists have factored in the commercial real estate meltdown that is taking place. No one seems to be talking about this yet.
Vacancies are growing rapidly, and industrial parks across the country are losing tenants. Companies are cutting back on facilities and reducing costs in any way possible. It is my understanding from friends on that side that this has not hit the fan yet and will be another major blow to the economy.
I may be off base, but if companies are not making anything and commercial RE is moribund, I would say we have a ways to go before any economist can say we're out of the woods. (he said whistling past the graveyard)
Posted by: matt | August 12, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Rich--
There is a probably a modest uptick in industrial purchasing right now, but U.S. factories don't appear to be doing much of the producing. The rail data is still showing intermodal traffic off about 16 percent Y-O-Y, and total traffic off 18 percent.
The problem with this theory is twofold. (1) Factories don't turn on a dime and fire up production until demand warrants it; and (2) Factories running at a fraction of capacity are much more likely to cannibalize unused equipment for parts than buy new. Weak durable goods numbers support this.
Posted by: Fresh Air | August 12, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Blue Ox
That was before the threat to the Executive Director cushy job became evident by the membership cancellations pouring in.
Just like congresscritters, these weasels are quite predictable. When the question is about you, your wellbeing and taxes to be paid, it can be a high minded debate. When its about them, whoa hold on a minute. It will be all about whats best for numero uno, period end of discussion.
Posted by: gmax | August 12, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Paglia remains totally behind Obama. She separates him from everyone he's hired; they're letting him down.
Posted by: PaulL | August 12, 2009 at 10:21 AM
ABC/Tapper today: The White House insisted that none of the attendees were pre-screened. Some attendees told ABC News they got their tickets through their local lawmakers or through a White House lottery at whitehouse.gov.
Posted by: DebinNC | August 12, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Matt is correct to worry about the coming impact of commercial real estate. To his list of factors, add the fact that unlike cycles past, many RE mortgages today are for shorter terms (often 5-7 years) and were based on figures (rents, occupancy, rates) that were all "good" when the current loans were put in place. Today the figures are bad, and therefore the values of the properties are way down (WSJ stated -35% since 2007 the other day).
So pity the landlord whose loan is due and which loan used to be 80% of value and is now 110%. And the old phone numbers of lenders are disconnected.
Hundreds of billions of problems are in this basket.
We might indeed achieve a technical end of the recession, but don't look for much coming out of it. And listen to Rich when he opines about falling back into the hole.
Much of the path will be determined by the fate of health care, cap & tax, and changes in tax rates. Owners of capital are still hiding.
Posted by: Old Lurker | August 12, 2009 at 10:33 AM
None of the attendees were pre-screened...
The WH really has a very low opinion of the press, doesn't it?
Posted by: Fresh Air | August 12, 2009 at 11:01 AM
FA
Based on prior results, I think they have a very realistic opinion of the press.
Posted by: gmax | August 12, 2009 at 11:05 AM
It's pretty funny how Il Douche keeps pulling out the lines about how his snitch-site has been distorted by the press. Those witless sheep have shilled for him every inch of his presidential path and he still employs them as useful idiot strawmen. That they sit and take it makes them even bigger fools than even I imagined.
Posted by: Captain Hate | August 12, 2009 at 11:09 AM
Nice post TM. This is so much easier, and more fun, than defending Bush.
Wow. I was going to fisk the bejeezus out of this, but on second thought I'm just going to put it back up to admire. This should go into some kind of museum of silly-ass attempts at argument.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | August 12, 2009 at 11:10 AM
Gatewaypundit has a video of O supporters getting off a bus for the N.H. town hall meeting! LUN
but if Obama says it wasn't scripted then who am I to question....
Posted by: Janet | August 12, 2009 at 11:12 AM
The NBER has prematurely declared the ends of the last two recessions, especially the last one when employment continued to decline for something like a year after the recession supposedly ended.
Well, that's why unemployment is called a "lagging indicator". But productivity went up a ton this period; what that indicates is that the people who have jobs are working harder and more. Since that can't continue forever, it would indicate employment will get better in the future.
The thing about the NBER is they use a different definition of recession, I guess because if economists agreed on a single definition of anything someone could prove them wrong. NBER measures a recession from then inflection point when the second derivative of GDP stays negative for a long time. So, when the economy starts growing more slowly, and continues, that starts the recession. The other definition is from when the first derivative goes negative; that is, when GDP is actually declining. So an NBER recession starts earlier, and ends earlier, but it also can't been observed except retroactively because you can't tell if a change in d²GDP/dt will be maintained until some time has passed.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | August 12, 2009 at 11:18 AM
I'm with GMAx - Obama counts on the press to carry his water - which probably explains Fox soaring ratings.
Posted by: Jane | August 12, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Gatewaypundit has a video of O supporters getting off a bus for the N.H. town hall meeting!
You can tell by their armbands.
Posted by: Fresh Air | August 12, 2009 at 11:29 AM
It seems from pics/video that Organizing for America/SEIU members must be overwhelmingly white, because relatively few black BO supporters are visible, especially inside the events. It couldn't be that BO/Axelrod are making sure people watching at home don't see very many black ObamaCare supporters at these events and are giving access to the forums primarily to white Obamabots, could it?
Posted by: DebinNC | August 12, 2009 at 11:29 AM
NBER uses a oujia board and the iching to date recessions.
Posted by: RichatUF | August 12, 2009 at 11:31 AM
The funniest thing about this whole farce is how Obama jumped the gun with the AARP.
He knows that they are going to support him because the leadership is completely in the tank, but he forgot that AARP has to pretend to be non-partisan, and read the bill, pretend that they're consulting the membership etc.
Kinda let the veil slip there.
Posted by: verner | August 12, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Liars have to keep lying to cover-up their past lies.
Posted by: fdcol63 | August 12, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Ruth Marcus is on point.
If Obama has lost Ruth Marcus, he's lost the country.
Posted by: jimmyk | August 12, 2009 at 12:07 PM
From what I have read/viewed about the BHO NH Townhall it was absolutely pitiful. It is obvious that Obama cannot handle a real discussion, instead he brazenly lies, must have planted questions to attempt to answer w/o the TP and the ra-ra crowd's 'yes we can' was a staged rendition from the great campaign. I think the Left has become desperate on HC and it is losing ground rapidly.
Posted by: WestWright | August 12, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Some of you people are so critical of someone for the first time in a decade that actually can make your life better!!! I suppose you would rather go back to the good old days of Bush - lies, deceit, unecessary wars, cover-ups etc. etc. Remember no one got into Bush events that didn't support him 100%. Obama actually has the ability to listen to all sides and the intelligence to think beyond knee jerk reactions. Republican extremists (wingnuts) are destroying our country, they don't represent the majority of our country's views at all. I was a republican but no more they are a party with nothing to say but cause fear, prey on people's lack of understanding or ignorance and use them to advance their agenda.
Posted by: LL | August 12, 2009 at 12:22 PM
WestWright--
Chauncey Hussein Gardner: Being There II: Dumber than Dumb
Posted by: Fresh Air | August 12, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Well, that's why unemployment is called a "lagging indicator".
Well, historically it doesn't lag by years. A few months, maybe. In fact, I understated it in my previous post: The end of the 2001 recession was declared to be November 2001, but employment troughed in September 2003, nearly two years later.
But productivity went up a ton this period; what that indicates is that the people who have jobs are working harder and more. Since that can't continue forever, it would indicate employment will get better in the future.
Yeah, and when it does maybe the recession will be over. Regardless of what the NBER declares.
...So an NBER recession starts earlier, and ends earlier, but it also can't been observed except retroactively because you can't tell if a change in d²GDP/dt will be maintained until some time has passed.
Nope. They were actually late in declaring the onset of the 2001 recession. No one's been able to figure out what the NBER does because it's subjective, and doesn't match up with any formula. In the old days this didn't matter much because the data were a little more synchronized, but in the last few downturns their timing has been pretty arbitrary because there's been a bigger disparity between indicators, and they've had to decide which to weigh more heavily.
Posted by: jimmyk | August 12, 2009 at 12:25 PM
I was a republican but no more . . .
Hi-frickin'-larious. Do you have any idea how completely unbelievable this is in the middle of that screed? Why not just say "by the way, I'm a liar" and have done with it?
Your party controls both houses of Congress (including a filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate), and the White House. And they're doing such a great job that approval ratings are through the roof for all of 'em. Or not. How you blame that on Republicans is beyond me (but apparently not beyond you). You might want to consider that town halls full of liars trying to sell a load of crap nobody wants is part of the problem. Cuz it is.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | August 12, 2009 at 12:31 PM
LL
did you get any on you in that violent and sudden regurgitation of all the bile you had for 8 years? Really sucks when your side does not appear to be able to lead a three man parade no dont it?
Posted by: gmax | August 12, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Charlie-
Productivity went up in the Q2 initial reading because wages were declining faster than output.
I'd add that the auto sector is so dislocated and the seasonal adjustments seem to be so off (they were a positive contribution to GDP and employment?) that it is going to take a few quarters to see the damage of the Chysler and GM bankruptcies and administration re-organizations.
Posted by: RichatUF | August 12, 2009 at 12:44 PM
((There is no difference between the unions ripping off their members and the AARP ripping off their members.))
One major difference is people aren't forced to join AARP. Union membership is not voluntary.
Posted by: Parking Lot | August 12, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Medicare is "slighted" (sic) to go into the red, WTF?
Interesting that Obama uses private correspondence from a senior citizen to raise a laugh. Great street theater,not very presidential.
Posted by: PeterUK | August 12, 2009 at 12:46 PM
((I urge everyone who is a member to send them notice of your resignation and make sure to explain why you are resigning. They are much more concerned about the Democrats than they are about seniors.))
I saw a link to an alternative organization the other day; spokesman is Pat Boone.
Posted by: Parking Lot | August 12, 2009 at 12:47 PM
a party with nothing to say but cause fear, prey on people's lack of understanding or ignorance and use them to advance their agenda.
LL broke my irony meter with that whopper. Speaking of using ignorant people, will Cindy Sheehan be able to get the counseling she so badly needs under BammerDeathapalooza?
Posted by: Captain Hate | August 12, 2009 at 12:50 PM
PeterUK-
If Medicare is in the black currently and can fund their obligations through the HI tax on wages and employment, how can Medicare be the driver of the defict today?
Posted by: RichatUF | August 12, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Alternative to AARP: 60plus.org
Posted by: DebinNC | August 12, 2009 at 12:54 PM
A better alternative than AARP at
LUN
Posted by: Stephanie | August 12, 2009 at 12:59 PM
RichatUF.
WTF does "slighted" mean?
Posted by: PeterUK | August 12, 2009 at 01:02 PM
The word should be "slated" (i.e., "scheduled," "expected" or "designated").
Posted by: Cecil Turner | August 12, 2009 at 01:09 PM
"Our deficit will continue to grow because Medicare and Medicaid are on unsustainable paths"
Amazing conflation. Discuss and debunk.
Posted by: PeterUK | August 12, 2009 at 01:10 PM
Rich--
Spot on re the auto stuff. There is normally a positive offset for seasonal auto production line idling that is baked into the employment numbers. The problem is that the lines are still idle. Ergo, the falloff from before isn't seasonal; it's permanent.
Posted by: Fresh Air | August 12, 2009 at 01:11 PM
Cecil,
I thought so." Just say the lines and don't walk into the furniture".
Theatre depends on a suspension of disbelief,but when the actor fluffs his lines....?
Posted by: PeterUK | August 12, 2009 at 01:14 PM
I listened to the video and it sounded a bit odd but I think he said slated not slighted.
He did however unfairly slight the gal who wrote him a letter telling him to leave private health care alone and to keep his hands off her medicare, as though both sentiments are mutually exclusive. He and his little creeps laughed knowingly at her faux pas. Perhaps she is satisfied with her medicare, doesn't want him axing payments to it and knows that it is private health care as presently constituted which is subsidizing her medicare. Maybe, just maybe she actually knows more than the jug eared wonder.
Posted by: Ignatz | August 12, 2009 at 01:19 PM
just read this on another forum:
Obama lied, Grandma died
Posted by: Parking Lot | August 12, 2009 at 01:24 PM
Ignatz,
If he said "slated" he said it with a southern accent,he didn't get that at Harvard.
Posted by: PeterUK | August 12, 2009 at 01:24 PM
Let me see if I understand this:
All government programs together are running a huge deficit. This is bad. The solution is a new huge government program.
We fund the government programs through taxes.
Paying taxes is patriotic, but we won't subject anyone to paying more of them except the rich and their businesses. We will make sure rich people pay more of their income in tax. We will also make sure they don't have too much income in the first place with our salary czar.
If we can't get enough tax revenue from the rich, we will get it by taxing income on businesses. We will also make sure the energy, financial, pharmaceutical, and insurance industries don't have too much income in the first place.
The new giant government program will be revenue neutral. It will be easy for private companies to compete with, because it will tend to lose money like the Post Office.
Everyone will be happy with the new government program. It will be like Medicare. No one has a bad word to say about Medicare.
We need the new government program because Medicare is running out of money.
The current system, under which health insurance is provided either directly through the government or subsidized indirectly through tax breaks for employers, government-sanctioned guilds control labor supply, and treatments must pass through multi-year, multi-hundred-billion-dollar tests required by the government, illustrate the dangers of the completely unregulated free market.
We also need the new government program because the current system is so terrible. Everyone hates the current system.
It's important that you know you will be able to stay in the current system if you want to.
-is that about it?
Posted by: bgates | August 12, 2009 at 01:40 PM
Paglia remains totally behind Obama. She separates him from everyone he's hired; they're letting him down.
Yeah, like that line's never, ever been heard before.
"If only [X] knew!"
Posted by: Rob Crawford | August 12, 2009 at 01:41 PM
The WH really has a very low opinion of the press, doesn't it?
Is he wrong?
Posted by: Rob Crawford | August 12, 2009 at 01:42 PM
Obama actually has the ability to listen to all sides and the intelligence to think beyond knee jerk reactions.
And yet his knee jerks like clockwork.
I'm beginning to suspect the intelligence of people who admire Obama's intelligence.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | August 12, 2009 at 01:45 PM
Productivity went up in the Q2 initial reading because wages were declining faster than output.
Really because employment declined faster than output. Also, productivity growth was revised down substantially for the two years prior to 2009Q2. The strong number for 2009Q2 may be a good omen or it may just be a blip. We'll see.
Posted by: jimmyk | August 12, 2009 at 01:47 PM
Rob--
Look at my 12:24 and click the link. Tell me it doesn't describe Zero perfectly.
Posted by: Fresh Air | August 12, 2009 at 01:50 PM
bgates, sounds about right. LOL
Posted by: fdcol63 | August 12, 2009 at 01:53 PM
jimmyk,
I was cribbing from the bls press release in my last comment. I don't see a few quarters of substantial productivity gains without other positive indicators as necessarily good news. We were going to go into a period of productivity strength in a few years anyway because of the baby boom retirement wave (this has been mostly the reason of the Euro strength the last couple of years)-the recession has gotten the wave started early by a few years.
Posted by: RichatUF | August 12, 2009 at 02:13 PM
Well said, bgates.
Posted by: Boatbuilder | August 12, 2009 at 02:35 PM
I suppose you would rather go back to the good old days of Bush
Be still my heart!
Posted by: Jane | August 12, 2009 at 02:39 PM
I suppose you would rather go back to the good old days of Bush
Well yeah!
Posted by: Sue | August 12, 2009 at 02:56 PM
--I don't see a few quarters of substantial productivity gains without other positive indicators as necessarily good news.--
Doesn't productivity typically grow during rising unemployment as marginal and less productive workers are laid off?
--Well said, bgates.--
Bgates writes funnier and better stuff than about 95% of syndicated columnists. Why isn't he one?
Posted by: Ignatz | August 12, 2009 at 02:57 PM
I was a republican but no more...
That's okay. I was a democrat but no more. Kind of washes things out...
Posted by: Sue | August 12, 2009 at 02:59 PM
Paglia negates everything she says in her first paragraph. She somehow thinks this is all happening outside of Obama's influence or in spite of him - as if he is somehow removed or in some nether region. All the blogs have been quoting her as if this heralds some new liberal thinking but it actually means nothing because she thinks he is so amazing.
Posted by: Dorothy Jane | August 12, 2009 at 03:21 PM