Obama: Do what I say to address economic crisis, or else!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I do think that pre-emptively criticising Obama before he's even taken office is a bit weird.

Why? Is there a criticism moratorium we don't know about? He ran on a platform, which gives us something to anticipate about positions he will take as president. His cabinet and executive appointments are open for criticism, too. Nothing pre-emptive about that.

Given that there we can't exactly measure his performance in the job - it seems a little silly.

No one is criticizing his performance on the job (yet).

All criticism thus far has been focused on his statements and his tone.

That's fair, because he has made many statements on a variety of issues.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I think AJ just likes to stir the pot!

True, BUT.... but that's not what I'm doing here. I voted for Obama. First time I've voted D in a presidential election. I even registered D this time around. First time I've registered with any party. I even gave money to Obama, twice. Again, first time I ever did that.

I want Obama to do well. But if you believe, for one fvcking second, that criticizing Obama means opposing him, that the only way to support the man is to shut your mouth about him, guess what? You're no better than a goddamn Republican. Because that's what they did with Bush, until it was too late.

If you want Obama to do well, criticize often and criticize early.

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

If you want Obama to do well, criticize often and criticize early.

cause i'm sure he reads vj to see how he stands.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If you want Obama to do well, criticize often and criticize early.

cause i'm sure he reads vj to see how he stands.

i hope one doesn't limit the criticism to just vj

If you'd like to make an impact, participate in liberal blogs like dKos. Use VJ as a sounding board, it's a good one.

[mRx 16]

I think calling the private sector efficient is a bit of a fallacy, certainly when it comes to job creation.

Even now there are still people who doss about on the internet all day, file frivolous expense claims or do work that ends up being pointless or duplicated - because departments don't communicate effectively.

The government get's it's income through the profits of the private sector. Businesses earn profits by efficiently managing costs/prices.

There are inefficient companies within the private sector, I agree. But free-market mechanisms tend to force the inefficient companies out of business.

It's foolhardy to believe that a government official can manage your money better than you can manage it yourself. There is no incentive or risk for government run programs. It's not their money to lose, and their salary stays the same either way. Therefore it is doomed from the get-go.

[nowhereman 1]

I think AJ just likes to stir the pot!

True, BUT.... but that's not what I'm doing here. I voted for Obama. First time I've voted D in a presidential election. I even registered D this time around. First time I've registered with any party. I even gave money to Obama, twice. Again, first time I ever did that.

I want Obama to do well. But if you believe, for one fvcking second, that criticizing Obama means opposing him, that the only way to support the man is to shut your mouth about him, guess what? You're no better than a goddamn Republican. Because that's what they did with Bush, until it was too late.

If you want Obama to do well, criticize often and criticize early.

I'm asking for what Fox News claims to be (but isn't)... Fair & Balanced! If Obama turns out to be a bad President I WILL criticize him, but I won't sit here & try to impeach the guy before he's even in office (like the right wingers are doing). As for Bush the only negative opinion I had of him back in 2000 was that he seemed a little dumb, but I gave him a chance. Bush screwed his own pooch.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Bush's pooch is Republican, they say he liked it.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Is it also true in the US that if you're not collecting unemployment benefit - that you're not counted as "unemployed" for the purposes of gathering employment statistics?

Yes. You don't want to count people who aren't looking for work as unemployed, but it does mean that people who spend more than the maximum time allowed to recieve UI checks to find a job get dropped from the metrics. I think it's fine, if someone can't find a job in 6-9 months, they're either completely unmarketable or aren't aiming low enough. If you read the NJ UI website, they clearly state that they expect you to target your job search soon after you get laid off in jobs similar to what you got laid off from, in a geographic area of your choice. They go on to say the longer you look for work, your choice of work and geographic preferences should become more flexible.

[chri'stina 190]

nowhereman---I hope this doesn't build AJ's ego any bigger(hah j/k), but I think he is one of the most "fair and balanced" when it comes to politics around here (well, uh, when he isn't spamming the board before an important election, bahaha). I have seen him criticize both sides better than anyone else ever has. Many people only criticize the party they aren't a part of. He's talked badly about every party even if he was voting with them! That's my view of it anyway. He is good at being mean to anyone, doesn't matter who you are or what side you're on!

Do you really think you are presenting a fair and balanced view yourself? Some people go over the edge in my opinion with trying to find every bad thing possible about Obama, but you make it sound like so many more people are or that no bad word should be said about him at all.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think calling the private sector efficient is a bit of a fallacy, certainly when it comes to job creation.

Even now there are still people who doss about on the internet all day, file frivolous expense claims or do work that ends up being pointless or duplicated - because departments don't communicate effectively.

The government get's it's income through the profits of the private sector. Businesses earn profits by efficiently managing costs/prices.

There are inefficient companies within the private sector, I agree. But free-market mechanisms tend to force the inefficient companies out of business.

It's foolhardy to believe that a government official can manage your money better than you can manage it yourself. There is no incentive or risk for government run programs. It's not their money to lose, and their salary stays the same either way. Therefore it is doomed from the get-go.

Only one of the ones I worked for is out of business (hostile merger). The others are still high up on the FTSE 100 index.

Wholesale privatisation tends to have unwanted side-effects - for example, lowering living standards (healthcare) and political freedoms (university education).

This free market stuff you are pushing seems to me to be a pure economic theory. Nothing wrong with that (in theory) but what I don't agree with is that it tends to treat ethics and morality as separate subjects (or things that can simply be assumed).

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Free market capitalism and communism have one thing in common.

Neither works, in their pure academic forms, in the real world.

[nowhereman 1]

nowhereman---I hope this doesn't build AJ's ego any bigger(hah j/k), but I think he is one of the most "fair and balanced" when it comes to politics around here (well, uh, when he isn't spamming the board before an important election, bahaha). I have seen him criticize both sides better than anyone else ever has. Many people only criticize the party they aren't a part of. He's talked badly about every party even if he was voting with them! That's my view of it anyway. He is good at being mean to anyone, doesn't matter who you are or what side you're on!

Do you really think you are presenting a fair and balanced view yourself? Some people go over the edge in my opinion with trying to find every bad thing possible about Obama, but you make it sound like so many more people are or that no bad word should be said about him at all.

AJ is a pretty reasonable guy... my beef isn't with him. Check out some of the other poster's comments & you might see what I'm talking about (AJ wasn't my target).

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

nowhereman---I hope this doesn't build AJ's ego any bigger(hah j/k), but I think he is one of the most "fair and balanced" when it comes to politics around here (well, uh, when he isn't spamming the board before an important election, bahaha). I have seen him criticize both sides better than anyone else ever has. Many people only criticize the party they aren't a part of. He's talked badly about every party even if he was voting with them! That's my view of it anyway. He is good at being mean to anyone, doesn't matter who you are or what side you're on!

Do you really think you are presenting a fair and balanced view yourself? Some people go over the edge in my opinion with trying to find every bad thing possible about Obama, but you make it sound like so many more people are or that no bad word should be said about him at all.

aj for president! aj for organizer!

[mRx 16]

I think calling the private sector efficient is a bit of a fallacy, certainly when it comes to job creation.

Even now there are still people who doss about on the internet all day, file frivolous expense claims or do work that ends up being pointless or duplicated - because departments don't communicate effectively.

The government get's it's income through the profits of the private sector. Businesses earn profits by efficiently managing costs/prices.

There are inefficient companies within the private sector, I agree. But free-market mechanisms tend to force the inefficient companies out of business.

It's foolhardy to believe that a government official can manage your money better than you can manage it yourself. There is no incentive or risk for government run programs. It's not their money to lose, and their salary stays the same either way. Therefore it is doomed from the get-go.

Wholesale privatisation tends to have unwanted side-effects - for example, lowering living standards (healthcare) and political freedoms (university education).

This free market stuff you are pushing seems to me to be a pure economic theory. Nothing wrong with that (in theory) but what I don't agree with is that it tends to treat ethics and morality as separate subjects (or things that can simply be assumed).

The American economy currently follows the Keynesian economic theory. Pretty much every economic advisor advocates one form of intervention or another, all the while remaining lockstep with Lord Keynes' theory. The problem is; there are other theories out there. Ones that are far more sound.

Obviously I totally disagree with your assumption that privatization causes low living standards. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

I think healthcare is a subject entirely different from privatization. In fact, healthcare would be much more affordable and the supply of it much more abundant if it was allowed to operate without coercive restrictions such as the FDA, AMA, and HMO act. So I think healthcare should be freed as well.

[HAL 9000 96]

Unfortunately, what you think is Keynesian is in fact pseudo-Keynesian.

The regulations in place, if truly in existence to regulate to adjust to a fair standard nationwide- would drive the costs downward as they stand. This is clearly not the case at this time.

Freeing up the regulations that you promote to be replaced by self-regulating enterprise is another way of asking for more price increases in the name of 'improving' supply and service. This is a perfect example where learning from several other countries and their regulatory practices could help.