Apocalypse now!
 

Bank stocks all now down more than 10% - Dow under 8000 and falling.

Some really strong confidence in the Fed/Senate programs, eh?

At this rate, we'll all be unemployed and on a bread line by the end of the year.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

I don't think they have a problem doing that right now. He's getting beaten like a gong on the Daschle and Geithner things and the press is already saying the public is losing faith in his plan. And it's going to get a lot worse for him.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

I'm always late........ maybe its a southern italian slur?

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

I'm late for everything, at least 10 minutes, and my attitude about it is if people don't like it, they can go fuck themselves. Hard. Twice. No. Reach. Around.

That's how the corner office rolls.

Maybe Obama Time is really PenskeTime, and he co-opted my rolling style, yes?

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

Carnivore Preservation Trust!?!? Indeed, Fuck PETA!

Re: Apocalypse now!
 

Guns. Gold. Wine. Stock up. Now.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

I'm sure they want to paint him as having no respect for the office (which is why they ran so many stupid stories about him not wearing a jacket in the oval office). But, given the many examples of the outright racist shit I've seen from them, I don't give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to something like this. Either way, it's fucking stupid, so it doesn't really matter if it's racial or not. He's late because he has shit to do. These types of "articles" where they guess at why he's late and land on "arrogant" are garbage.

TM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

Talk about huge fucking leaps. But you're going to grab hold to this little piece of bullshit you made up and repeat it so often over his presidency that you're going to think that people who aren't you actually think this.

TM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

My thinking on it is would Fox present the same story in the same way if Biden or Dodd or Edwards had won and done [whatever Obama did] exactly the same way. On this one, I think the answer is yes. On a lot of the other stuff, you are absolutely correct--they wouldn't present the story the same way (or perhaps not even raise the "issue") if the president weren't black.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

And I (and several others here) had never heard of CPT.

Re: Apocalypse now!
 

At least here in Jersey it will be real Italian bread.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

Okay. You convinced me. But I still think Fox is happy with the unintended readings.

TM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

This will be my new line, replacing the "that's how I roll" mantra. I like it. I think it will be more persuasive.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

Maybe I am just missing it, but what is the connection between being late and being black?

Re: Apocalypse now!
 

What Exit?

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

and, corollary when you premature ejaculate, "I had to get done quickly. I got shit to do!"

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

I thought it was an abbreviation for Compton. (punk police are afraid of me)

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

no mas.

Re: 203 Economists Against Stimulus Package
 

Surely someone as smart as you doesn't actually fall for this red herring. Our economy is far too complex for this even to be possible, and even if it wasn't, we don't have any tricks in the bag to create really high paying banker jobs. But that doesn't mean we aren't better for with more employment overall.

Re: 203 Economists Against Stimulus Package
 

What's a red herring about it? Forget banking, because the stimulus has nothing to do with that. I'm asking whether there's a basic mismatch between the skills of the un/underemployed and the jobs that the stimulus purports to create. As I pointed out a couple of weeks ago, in the 1930s rock breaking was what a lot of people did anyway. Terminating fiberoptic cables at distribution points? Not so much.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

No fucking way. Giving lie to the thread title.

And I agree Fox is happy (or, certainly, not displeased) with the unintended readings. Gotta play to your audience, even if accidentally.

Re: 203 Economists Against Stimulus Package
 

that's what I always thought was suspect about Obama's long term promise of jobs in the alternative energy field. unless he means pumping hydrogen those jobs will mostly not be something a largely unskilled factory line worker can do.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

It's all they've got. Fox picked sides, viciously, and now they're going to pay. Obama's going to keep them in the cheap seats at every press conference for the rest of his Presidency.

And if idiots like Major Garrett insist on cross-examining him in such a poor fashion, he's going to keep laughing at them.

What really pisses me off is that Garrett actually had stumbled into an important question and then totally fucked it up by trying to turn it into an attack. The nimbleness of Obama's plan is an issue I'd like to hear about.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

I think this is right, but I also had never heard of CPT.

But it is not uncommon around to office to note that just about nothing starts on time (meetings, calls, etc), which is often referred to as "[first name of firm] time" which I am pretty sure is not racial.

Re: 203 Economists Against Stimulus Package
 

Well, they should be able to give those jobs to the out-of-work lawyers; after all, you can do anything you want with a law degree. Right?

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

Translation: Is Wonk black?

TM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

Exactly, during work hours I have a strict limit of no more than 30 minutes and no less than 28 minutes for my IELT. If my partner can't squeeze in a good dozen Os in that time period, I'm out and up, as the saying goes.

Re: 203 Economists Against Stimulus Package
 

You can.

Try to get a good non-legal job with "litigator" on your resume. It's like the Mark of the Beast.

"No, no... Really. You see, I hate litigation. Loath it! Really. I play well with others!"

Re: 203 Economists Against Stimulus Package
 

Because it means that if we can't acheive an impossible level of precision, we shouldn't do anything. And it assume that macroeconomic policy is actually microeconomic policy.

This is because you are assuming something about who is in this group of people (especially the under part). You are also assuming that low and semi skill jobs will not attract additional workers. And you are ignoring the multiplier effect.

It was silly then too. First, I'm not sure that it is ever historically true. Second, the percentage of the work force involved in work breaking in 1991, for example, was not materially different.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

I've heard it a lot. Almost always from a black person who gets somewhere late, or from one black person referring to another black person who has yet to arrive somewhere. But i assume it had its roots in white people usage.

Hell, Clinton time may have been a goof on it.

Re: 203 Economists Against Stimulus Package
 

Someone has to build, install and service the turbines, hydrogen extraction and pumps, etc. It certainly would require some re-training--and your 20+ year GM line worker isn't going to be the first candidate--but the thought is about replacing "jobs", not "that guy's job", which doesn't really help the guy in Detroit, but does (if (big if) it works) give the economy as a whole about the same thing.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

It may well have been an intentional reference. But it seems to me that they could have gotten there without intending any reference, as it is a construction I may have used myself. I tend not to give them the benefit of the doubt, but here I don't think we will ever know.

Re: 203 Economists Against Stimulus Package
 

2

Re: 203 Economists Against Stimulus Package
 

we won't be building 10 million wind turbines.

the only real hope for it is if we somehow get ahead on some very basic technology and patent the shit out of it, and then get it into cars.

Burger, how much of the stimulus is earmarked for patent firms?

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

funny, I was more willing to give them a pass on the "baby momma" thing thinking they could have just been ignorant since it was off the cuff, but this, at the lead of a written edited piece, i thought was a clearer intended use.

Re: 203 Economists Against Stimulus Package
 

So action for action's sake?

I'm assuming that people who were working in retail sales positions probably don't have skills to do construction, convert medical records to electronic forms, develop alternative fuels vehicles, and so on.

Sure, there are some out-of-work construction folks. But we're not planning $800B of roads, bridges, and community wave pools. (Hi, John King!)

Re: 203 Economists Against Stimulus Package
 

I'm sure there's something in there for you. If not, you've got the Worst. Lobbyists. Ever.

Re: Apocalypse now!
 

fuckers!

Re: 203 Economists Against Stimulus Package
 

And this job retraining and reemployment will occur immediately? Because I don't see funds for retraining programs . . .

It does matter that the GM line worker is there, because he's the one needing the job. He's the slack resource. If you're just moving the employed from one job to another, you have to ask why. And the "why" in this case is because the government will have decided that some jobs deserve subsidization, so people move from the job that hte market valued more highly to one that the government is subsidizing*. And then someone else fills that old job, but chances are it's still not the unemployed guy, who maybe, eventually, after a bunch of people switch jobs, can find an opening somewhere.

BTW, adder, the multiplier effect doesn't work if there's nothing to multiply in the first place. Someone who's already on teh payrolls isn't going to spend more money just because the government is now paying him.




*Note: It may be worthwhile to subsidize certain jobs if one finds the market doesn't value them sufficiently highly because of some market failure. But that's not a stimulus bill--that's long-term economic planning.

Re: 203 Economists Against Stimulus Package
 

Oh stop. There will be jobs that are too complicated for many average line-type workers. There will be other jobs that are a small piece of something larger (that sounds so technical that we can't conceive of how current workers will train for it) and there will be plenty of people to take that piece of the job. In fact, the more complicated the task, the more likely multiple positions will need to be created to get it done--each piece taken by itself being not too difficult.

TM