• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Jobs Report - Lower than Expected Jobs Growth

bobknightfan said:
That's exactly what happened.
Click to expand...

In your opinion, did Obama circling back *after* he and Boehner had agreed on the framework number of $800b, asking for an additional $400b in increases have anything to do with the failure?
 
beatrix said:
So you read the article, then? And your takeaway from the significant efforts of a well-respected NYT reporter/columnist is that Cantor submarined the deal?
Click to expand...

As part of a broader proposal, which has remained until now a closely held secret, Boehner was apparently open to meeting the president at the new, higher revenue target — a concession that most likely would have meant abandoning the idea that no taxes would have to be raised. Had that counteroffer ever made it to Obama’s desk, it’s not hard to imagine that the grand bargain would have gotten done within 24 hours, at great political risk to both men. Whether it could have passed the House — whether, in fact, any deal would ever have reached the president’s desk — is a question that will never be answered.

What happened, instead, based on extensive reporting, was this: Boehner raised the possibility of his counteroffer with Cantor on that Thursday afternoon, and Cantor dismissed the suggestion out of hand.

If you don't think Cantor would have stabbed Boehner in the back to kill the deal, you haven't been watching the past few years.

AND Cantor did "dismissed the suggestions out of hand".

No tax increases meant no deal.
 
RJKarl said:
As part of a broader proposal, which has remained until now a closely held secret, Boehner was apparently open to meeting the president at the new, higher revenue target — a concession that most likely would have meant abandoning the idea that no taxes would have to be raised. Had that counteroffer ever made it to Obama’s desk, it’s not hard to imagine that the grand bargain would have gotten done within 24 hours, at great political risk to both men. Whether it could have passed the House — whether, in fact, any deal would ever have reached the president’s desk — is a question that will never be answered.

What happened, instead, based on extensive reporting, was this: Boehner raised the possibility of his counteroffer with Cantor on that Thursday afternoon, and Cantor dismissed the suggestion out of hand.

If you don't think Cantor would have stabbed Boehner in the back to kill the deal, you haven't been watching the past few years.

AND Cantor did "dismissed the suggestions out of hand".

No tax increases meant no deal.
Click to expand...

I believe the part you pasted came after Obama miscalculated and tried to beat $400b more out of Boehner using the 'Gang of Six' stick. On the original $800b deal, Cantor and the house could have been brought along.

Suggestion - stop skipping around the article looking for nuggets. Try reading it start to finish. Maybe grab a cigar and a scotch and really read it. It's fascinating. And nowhere near as simplistic as you're suggesting. There was broad, bi-partisan support (if the Times reporter is to be believed) that would have been more than sufficient to bring people along.
 
The right says the $800B-1T raising the taxes on income of over $250,000 was not important. Why is this $800B worth it?

Also $800B is NOT the Grand Bargain. The Grand Bargain was $4T. As I showed Cantor would never let the Grand Bargain pass.
 
Cantor and Biden both agreed they would have gotten a deal done, that was a pretty interesting factoid in the Woodward excerpt.
 
bobknightfan said:
I'm sure that Obama coming back for more didn't help matters. The two factors to consider in my opinion, however, were these: 1) The first $800B was bogus, as I have described. Obama should never have accepted that offer in the first place; and 2) as RJ has correctly stated, even that offer, with its "raise revenue by lowering rates" would never have passed the GOP House, as Cantor & the Tea Party would have torpedoed it. They were never going to reach any agreement with Obama on anything which miught have been construed as beneficial to Obama. The #1 goal of these people was never to solve a budget problem, but to take down Obama. Obama could probably have offered them 110% of what they wanted and they would have found a way to reject it. As I said, Obama was like Dickie Kerr in the 1919 World Series. He was trying to solve a problem and Cantor & the Tea Party Republicans in the House were trying to make sure that the problem did not get solved. And Boehner finally realized that he ran the caucus in name onnly, and if he didn't go along, they would take him out and shoot him, figuratively speaking, of course.
Click to expand...

Okay. That's certainly an interpretation of events. For me, I was impressed by the effort the President and Boehner put into it. I would have liked to see a vote on the initial framework, if hadn't been submarined by all the various factors, mis-steps, agendas, etc. that were in play.
 
Cuts with no guarantee of revenue increases. That's a terrible deal and shouldn't have been made.

The reality is without significant revenue increases there is no way to cut the deficit significantly.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Anyone that votes for a candidate (or not) based on a single month's job report frightens me. This is a non-event, except it gives either MSNBC or FOX something to hyperventilate about.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And I think Silver has a pretty good take on this one. Basically, the report appears to a wash politically, and emblematically of the slow, subpar, steady growth of the economy this year. Continued recovery, but at a walking pace. I doubt there's much hay to be made with it.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...bs-numbers-on-presidential-race-is-uncertain/

Politically, however, it is less certain that the report is going to matter that much. The unemployment rate declined for superficial reasons, which makes for a gentler headline for President Obama.

Perhaps more important, the report did not change the basic story of an economy that is experiencing subpar growth but is in recovery rather than recession.
 
bobknightfan said:
Beatrix, where you are having a problem is that you are assuming that all of these people were thinking rationally, in good faith, and actually wanted to reach an agreement, but were just having difficulties in doing so. This is not what was going on. Obama wanted to reach an agreement. Boehner even probably wanted to reach an agreement....but both Obama & Boehner were powerless to do so because Cantor & his Tea Party cohorts in the House did not want to reach an agreement....and were never going to reach an agreement....and they held the power to prevent one from happening. Boehner finally decided to save his own neck...at least for the time being....by relenting to Cantor. To use a term from The Godfather, Cantor "made him an offer he couldn't refuse".

So the country lost, and the blame for that lies not with Obama, nor even with Boehner.....but with Cantor and the Tea Party Republicans in the House. If the people in this nation really want to do something to help their country, they will throw out as many of those despicable Republicans who were first elected two years ago as possible. They have been an unmitigated disaster for this country.
Click to expand...


From my perspective, they've done the country a service. The conversation has changed somewhat from "How to pay for Big Gov" (deficit hawks are cool with raising taxes) to "How big should Big Gov be"...
 
beatrix said:
[/U]

From my perspective, they've done the country a service. The conversation has changed somewhat from "How to pay for Big Gov" (deficit hawks are cool with raising taxes) to "How big should Big Gov be"...
Click to expand...

This isn't so.

Not a single one of the 8-9 GOP candidates for POTUS would have agreed to $1 in tax hikes for $10 in cuts. There's no evidence whatsoever that Congressional Republicans would vote for any tax increases.

In fact, the Ryan/Romney Plan calls for massive tax cuts. Every GOP Congressman and Senator supported this.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
Agreed. And I think Silver has a pretty good take on this one. Basically, the report appears to a wash politically, and emblematically of the slow, subpar, steady growth of the economy this year. Continued recovery, but at a walking pace. I doubt there's much hay to be made with it.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...bs-numbers-on-presidential-race-is-uncertain/

Politically, however, it is less certain that the report is going to matter that much. The unemployment rate declined for superficial reasons, which makes for a gentler headline for President Obama.

Perhaps more important, the report did not change the basic story of an economy that is experiencing subpar growth but is in recovery rather than recession.
Click to expand...

If memory serves, you were looking forward to this report this time yesterday, no?
 
jhmd2000 said:
If memory serves, you were looking forward to this report this time yesterday, no?
Click to expand...

I was, and I admit to a mild disappointment. I always hope for great economic news, and most indicators were pointing to 135K new jobs or so. It's disappointing, but it's still positive momentum for the economy. This isn't a bad jobs report, it's just not a wonderful one. And you might just lose that 8% unemployment mantra next month!
 
RJKarl said:
This isn't so.

Not a single one of the 8-9 GOP candidates for POTUS would have agreed to $1 in tax hikes for $10 in cuts. There's no evidence whatsoever that Congressional Republicans would vote for any tax increases.

In fact, the Ryan/Romney Plan calls for massive tax cuts. Every GOP Congressman and Senator supported this.
Click to expand...

You're citing boilerplate from the primaries as evidence? :bowrofl:
 
Go said:
Cantor and Biden both agreed they would have gotten a deal done, that was a pretty interesting factoid in the Woodward excerpt.
Click to expand...

Missed this when my day job interrupted the board back and forth. Do Cantor and Biden know RJ disagrees with them?
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
I was, and I admit to a mild disappointment. I always hope for great economic news, and most indicators were pointing to 135K new jobs or so. It's disappointing, but it's still positive momentum for the economy. This isn't a bad jobs report, it's just not a wonderful one. And you might just lose that 8% unemployment mantra next month!
Click to expand...

You think it will really go to 9% that quickly? I figure it will take at least two more months...
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
I was, and I admit to a mild disappointment. I always hope for great economic news, and most indicators were pointing to 135K new jobs or so. It's disappointing, but it's still positive momentum for the economy. This isn't a bad jobs report, it's just not a wonderful one. And you might just lose that 8% unemployment mantra next month!
Click to expand...

Isn't the population participating in the labor force (i.e. people working) the lowest it has been something like 30 years? If that is true, this report sucks. And isn't the rate of job creation is the slowest it has been in many months as well. It is decelerating. That is also worrisome and not a good sign - although perhaps hiring in late summer tends to be slower anyway. Anyway, what good is a lowered unemployment rate if it is the result of people just leaving the workforce - unless those people are just capable of retiring comfortably (and we all know those baby boomers have been great savers over the years).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top