Top Obama Adviser: Unemployment Won't Be Key in 2012

[cpwill]

President Obama’s senior political adviser David Plouffe said Wednesday that people won’t vote in 2012 based on the unemployment rate.

...Most economists expect a report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to show that the nation added about 100,000 jobs in June. That’s not enough to keep up with population growth, let alone lower the unemployment rate or make a dent in the 9 million jobs lost during the so called Great Recession.

It’s looking more and more like Obama will have to do something no president has done since Franklin Roosevelt: Win reelection with unemployment around 8 percent....

“The average American does not view the economy through the prism of GDP or unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers,” Plouffe said, according to Bloomberg. “People won’t vote based on the unemployment rate, they’re going to vote based on: ‘How do I feel about my own situation? Do I believe the president makes decisions based on me and my family?’ ”

The remarks will likely irritate Democrats who think Obama and his political team have taken their eye off jobs....​

Ya think?



January 2010: Jobs Number One Issue With Americans
February 2011: Unemployment Number One Concern for Americans

 

[cpwill]

oh, and rather than adding 100,000 jobs in June? we added 18,000 jobs. And April and May have just been "revised downward" by 44,000 jobs.

if Plouffe believes the smoke he's blowing, he doesn't deserve the money the President is paying him.

 

[tessaesque]

If the last three months are representative they'd have to hope not. It's up again this month and we only introduced 18,000 jobs in June. Of course, both parties will spin tis to blame the other...so it'll really be about the most convincing method.

 

[Conservative]

If the last three months are representative they'd have to hope not. It's up again this month and we only introduced 18,000 jobs in June. Of course, both parties will spin tis to blame the other...so it'll really be about the most convincing method.

Obama record, 15.1 million officially unemployed TODAY 2 1/2 years later, 16.2% total unemployment or over 20 million TODAY, 4 trillion added to the debt as of the end of fiscal year 2011, and a rising misery index. Notice that all you can do is divert from that record.

 

[sangha]

President Obama’s senior political adviser David Plouffe said Wednesday that people won’t vote in 2012 based on the unemployment rate.

...Most economists expect a report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to show that the nation added about 100,000 jobs in June. That’s not enough to keep up with population growth, let alone lower the unemployment rate or make a dent in the 9 million jobs lost during the so called Great Recession.

It’s looking more and more like Obama will have to do something no president has done since Franklin Roosevelt: Win reelection with unemployment around 8 percent....

“The average American does not view the economy through the prism of GDP or unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers,” Plouffe said, according to Bloomberg. “People won’t vote based on the unemployment rate, they’re going to vote based on: ‘How do I feel about my own situation? Do I believe the president makes decisions based on me and my family?’ ”

The remarks will likely irritate Democrats who think Obama and his political team have taken their eye off jobs....​

Ya think?



January 2010: Jobs Number One Issue With Americans
February 2011: Unemployment Number One Concern for Americans

Just more confirmation that my not voting for BO in 2008 was the right decision.

 

[tessaesque]

Obama record, 15.1 million officially unemployed TODAY 2 1/2 years later, 16.2% total unemployment or over 20 million TODAY, 4 trillion added to the debt as of the end of fiscal year 2011, and a rising misery index. Notice that all you can do is divert from that record.

What exactly does that mean?

 

[BDBoop]

It’s looking more and more like Obama will have to do something no president has done since Franklin Roosevelt: Win reelection with unemployment around 8 percent....

How on earth will it get down to 8%?

 

[winston53660]

How on earth will it get down to 8%?

Well first slash budgets, lay teachers off, don't raise taxes....oh wait never mind.

 

[tessaesque]

Well first slash budgets, lay teachers off, don't raise taxes....oh wait never mind.

The government doesn't do this, school districts do. And if you have a problem with it you should be screaming at the top of your lungs for these districts to start behaving in a responsible manner instead of using fear-tactics and extreme measures to make a point that doesn't need to be made.

 

[winston53660]

The government doesn't do this, school districts do. And if you have a problem with it you should be screaming at the top of your lungs for these districts to start behaving in a responsible manner instead of using fear-tactics and extreme measures to make a point that doesn't need to be made.

Schools districts are a part of the government. And now even that grand ole bastion of Republicanism Highland Park is going after federal funds.

 

[BDBoop]

How on earth will it get down to 8%?

Norly. What can the government do to lower unemployment?

 

[tessaesque]

Schools districts are a part of the government. And now even that grand ole bastion of Republicanism Highland Park is going after federal funds.

Yeah, they are. But your statement seemed more representative of the fed, not local municipalities. Again, nobody forced them to cut teachers, they had other options and refused to exercise them. We should be cheering the districts who came up with other ideas.

I have nothing to do with Highland Park or it's hypocrisy. Throwing it out there as though it degrades my point or my platforms does nothing.

 

[tessaesque]

Norly. What can the government do to lower unemployment?

Immediately? Pretty much the only thing they can do is create millions of govt. jobs. Realisitically that's a bad, bad idea. Long term we're probably going to have to see things get worse temporarily before they can get better. Nobody wants to accept it or put their name on it, but it seems like we're going to have to force the bottom out and then rebuild...I can't see the debt-ceiling talks doing anything but causing further short-term decline, regardless of which way it swings.

 

[greatar4]

I was reading that particular post on Bloomberg. I think that's way that David Plouffe is trying to downplay what's kind of role the economy is going play in the 2012 election. History does show that every time the economy is in the rank, it always turn bad for the incumbent president.

Most economists expect a report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to show that the nation added about 100,000 jobs in June.

It's not even close to that much, the economy added a total of 18,000 jobs instead.

 

[Badmutha]

President Obama’s senior political adviser David Plouffe said Wednesday that people won’t vote in 2012 based on the unemployment rate.

.....I hope all you Democrats that are going on your third year of unemployment heard that...........
.
.
.
.

 

[sangha]

Yeah, they are. But your statement seemed more representative of the fed, not local municipalities. Again, nobody forced them to cut teachers, they had other options and refused to exercise them. We should be cheering the districts who came up with other ideas.

I have nothing to do with Highland Park or it's hypocrisy. Throwing it out there as though it degrades my point or my platforms does nothing.

Obama supports the layoffs. According to him, everyone has to tighten his belts. According the Keynesian economic theory, which dems have historically adhered to, when individuals and businesses cut back on spending, the govt should increase spending.

And his support is not just verbal. He has thrown his political capital in support of this belt tightening.

 

[tessaesque]

Obama supports the layoffs. According to him, everyone has to tighten his belts. According the Keynesian economic theory, which dems have historically adhered to, when individuals and businesses cut back on spending, the govt should increase spending.

And his support is not just verbal. He has thrown his political capital in support of this belt tightening.

"Tighten belts" does not mean "I want you to fire teachers". That's a huge, illogical leap based on...well, not much. I printed off the budgets for the largest area district (Dallas ISD) and the percentage of the budget dedicated to teacher salaries and benefits is minisicule in comparison to administration salary and benefits. We are not a large union state, that isn't the problem. The problem is districts thinking they can use teacher layoffs to make a point and generate anger in the electorate. "These people are causing the loss of teachers"....and people are buying it. Hold the districts accountable, stop pandering to disgusting activities that hurt the education of our children for the sake of deceiving the public about how dire the situation really is.

 

[sangha]

"Tighten belts" does not mean "I want you to fire teachers". That's a huge, illogical leap based on...well, not much. I printed off the budgets for the largest area district (Dallas ISD) and the percentage of the budget dedicated to teacher salaries and benefits is minisicule in comparison to administration salary and benefits. We are not a large union state, that isn't the problem. The problem is districts thinking they can use teacher layoffs to make a point and generate anger in the electorate. "These people are causing the loss of teachers"....and people are buying it. Hold the districts accountable, stop pandering to disgusting activities that hurt the education of our children for the sake of deceiving the public about how dire the situation really is.

Actually, firing teachers is a part of the tightening of belts that Obama supports. He has said so.

And the fact that firing teachers does little to save money just shows what a moron Obama is. He has much in common with the republicans

 

[tessaesque]

Actually, firing teachers is a part of the tightening of belts that Obama supports. He has said so.

And the fact that firing teachers does little to save money just shows what a moron Obama is. He has much in common with the republicans

I'd have to ask you to find me a link where he specifically encourages firing teachers instead of any other option for cuts.

 

[sangha]

I'd have to ask you to find me a link where he specifically encourages firing teachers instead of any other option for cuts.

I saw it on TV so I don't have a link.

 

[tessaesque]

I saw it on TV so I don't have a link.

8 pages into Google results all I can find is him saying that we would see massive teacher, police, and firefighter layoffs if we didn't pass a bill he signed last year which was supposed to "prevent the termination of 30,000+ teachers".

 

[Conservative]

Immediately? Pretty much the only thing they can do is create millions of govt. jobs. Realisitically that's a bad, bad idea. Long term we're probably going to have to see things get worse temporarily before they can get better. Nobody wants to accept it or put their name on it, but it seems like we're going to have to force the bottom out and then rebuild...I can't see the debt-ceiling talks doing anything but causing further short-term decline, regardless of which way it swings.

Wrong, they can provide incentive for the private sector to create jobs and massive regulations, tax uncertainty, the potential cost of Obamacare, the pro union policies do nothing to promote the private sector.

 

[Conservative]

8 pages into Google results all I can find is him saying that we would see massive teacher, police, and firefighter layoffs if we didn't pass a bill he signed last year which was supposed to "prevent the termination of 30,000+ teachers".

Teachers are state responsibility not the Federal govt. All Obama did was bailout the union pension funds and take over state responsibility especially in states that had bad behavior

 

[tessaesque]

Teachers are state responsibility not the Federal govt. All Obama did was bailout the union pension funds and take over state responsibility especially in states that had bad behavior

I have no idea what you're talking about. I've said like 3 or 4 times that it's the districts that control teacher layoffs. I also never voiced an opinion on the bill I referenced in my post. I was merely pointing out that I did not find anything from Obama where he clearly stated that he supported, endorsed, or accepted teacher layoffs as either necessary or the best course of action.

 

[Conservative]

I have no idea what you're talking about. I've said like 3 or 4 times that it's the districts that control teacher layoffs. I also never voiced an opinion on the bill I referenced in my post. I was merely pointing out that I did not find anything from Obama where he clearly stated that he supported, endorsed, or accepted teacher layoffs as either necessary or the best course of action.

Sorry, I responded to other thread posts through yours. I recognize that you understand that but many here don't. Many of those so called saved jobs that Obama claims were teachers' jobs and as you and I have both stated that is state responsibility, not something the Federal Taxpayer should fund through the stimulus plan.