WASHINGTON - Vice President Joe Biden says the Republican Party is strong enough to beat President Barack Obama in the 2012 election. During an appearance Thursday at the Washington Ideas Forum, Biden said a significant majority of the American people don't believe the country is moving in the right direction. And he says that is never a good place to be going into re-election, regardless of whether it is the current administration's fault or not. Story here. Biden said it - w00t, there it is
Statistically when unemployment is up, (and 20% without jobs is pretty dang high) the party in office usually loses the presidency and seats on both houses. I'm not saying it will happen this time, but it is almost always the case that this happens. Nothing really new, parties shift based on current economic conditions of the country.
The potential is definitely there. I don't know a sane person alive who denies that. The popular candidates, however, are far too right to win over very many moderate and liberal voters.
[QUOTE="ferrari2001"](and 20% without jobs is pretty dang high)coolbeans90
Wat? It's a wee bit less than half of that.
No unemployment is based on government figures which figures in the number of people that are currently on or filing for unemployment based on previous job figures. If you count the people that do not have jobs or are on a severely low income or low hour jobs that cannot file for unemployment because their benefits have run our the number is around 20% (this is called underemployment). Unemployment numbers are skewed because it only counts those individuals that are currently receiving unemployment benefits.
[QUOTE="ferrari2001"](and 20% without jobs is pretty dang high)coolbeans90
Wat? It's a wee bit less than half of that.
Unemployment %s only include people actively searching for jobs. 20% is probably pretty accurate. Never mind people working part-time who need full time work.
[QUOTE="ferrari2001"](and 20% without jobs is pretty dang high)ferrari2001
Wat? It's a wee bit less than half of that.
No unemployment is based on government figures which figures in the number of people that are currently on or filing for unemployment based on previous job figures. If you count the people that do not have jobs or are on a severely low income or low hour jobs that cannot file for unemployment because their benefits have run our the number is around 20% (this is called underemployment). Unemployment numbers are skewed because it only counts those individuals that are currently receiving unemployment benefits.
Gallup also hovers around 9% as well - and underemployment is not unemployment.
It's not that the GOP is strong enough, it's that Obama is so weak right now.
DroidPhysX
He is a weak leader. I'm shocked no one in the Democratic party ran a primary against him. A true Rockefeller Republican if I ever saw one.Not even sure what that has to do with the lack of leadership and a democratic primary.
[QUOTE="ferrari2001"](and 20% without jobs is pretty dang high)nintendofreak_2
Wat? It's a wee bit less than half of that.
Unemployment %s only include people actively searching for jobs. 20% is probably pretty accurate. Never mind people working part-time who need full time work.
If one isn't searching for work, it is difficult to say they are interested in receiving one, and like I said in a previous post: underemployment != unemployment.
[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]He is a weak leader. I'm shocked no one in the Democratic party ran a primary against him.KC_Hokie
A true Rockefeller Republican if I ever saw one.Not even sure what that has to do with the lack of leadership and a democratic primary. *implies that hes a republican thus implies he should be in republican primary*
Wat? It's a wee bit less than half of that.coolbeans90
No unemployment is based on government figures which figures in the number of people that are currently on or filing for unemployment based on previous job figures. If you count the people that do not have jobs or are on a severely low income or low hour jobs that cannot file for unemployment because their benefits have run our the number is around 20% (this is called underemployment). Unemployment numbers are skewed because it only counts those individuals that are currently receiving unemployment benefits.
Gallup also hovers around 9% as well - and underemployment is not unemployment.
I never said unemployment I said 20% without jobs. The number of people without jobs and the number of people unemployed are two completely different numbers. Those that have stopped looking for jobs, were denyed unemployment, let benefits expire and got part time low paying jobs are not counted in the unemployment numbers. The current unemployment number is like 9.5% those without jobs is much higher.
According to reports I've read and heard. Again, the unemployment numbers only include a portion of those actually looking for jobs. The 17% was one estimate but when you consider who the 9% doesn't include, it's not hard to come up with a considerabely higher number.
[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] A true Rockefeller Republican if I ever saw one.Not even sure what that has to do with the lack of leadership and a democratic primary. *implies that hes a republican thus implies he should be in republican primary*It is strange that someone isn't running against Obama in a primary. Even Hillary, Webb or Bayh could run against him from the right and obviously socialist could run against him from the left. The end result would more than likely be a better candidate.
No unemployment is based on government figures which figures in the number of people that are currently on or filing for unemployment based on previous job figures. If you count the people that do not have jobs or are on a severely low income or low hour jobs that cannot file for unemployment because their benefits have run our the number is around 20% (this is called underemployment). Unemployment numbers are skewed because it only counts those individuals that are currently receiving unemployment benefits.
ferrari2001
Gallup also hovers around 9% as well - and underemployment is not unemployment.
I never said unemployment I said 20% without jobs. The number of people without jobs and the number of people unemployed are two completely different numbers. Those that have stopped looking for jobs, were denyed unemployment, let benefits expire and got part time low paying jobs are not counted in the unemployment numbers. The current unemployment number is like 9.5% those without jobs is much higher.
Unemployment - by very definition, is people who have no work, not too little work. You said people with no jobs (that presumably want one) is 20%: unemployment. Those denied unemployment checks are taken in w. Gallup surveys provided they are "seeking" employment. The number of those without jobs is technically 50%, but that inherently means little when taking into account that not everyone does that work thing their entire life.
Gallup also hovers around 9% as well - and underemployment is not unemployment.
coolbeans90
I never said unemployment I said 20% without jobs. The number of people without jobs and the number of people unemployed are two completely different numbers. Those that have stopped looking for jobs, were denyed unemployment, let benefits expire and got part time low paying jobs are not counted in the unemployment numbers. The current unemployment number is like 9.5% those without jobs is much higher.
Unemployment - by very definition, is people who have no work, not too little work. You said people with no jobs (that presumably want one) is 20%: unemployment. Those denied unemployment checks are taken in w. Gallup surveys provided they are "seeking" employment. The number of those without jobs is technically 50%, but that inherently means little when taking into account that not everyone does that work thing their entire life.
Under employed might as well be unemployed when it comes to the economy though. People working part time (that require full time pay) don't even make enough to pay the bills. They aren't going to be pouring money into the economy.
[QUOTE="ferrari2001"] I never said unemployment I said 20% without jobs. The number of people without jobs and the number of people unemployed are two completely different numbers. Those that have stopped looking for jobs, were denyed unemployment, let benefits expire and got part time low paying jobs are not counted in the unemployment numbers. The current unemployment number is like 9.5% those without jobs is much higher. Pirate700
Unemployment - by very definition, is people who have no work, not too little work. You said people with no jobs (that presumably want one) is 20%: unemployment. Those denied unemployment checks are taken in w. Gallup surveys provided they are "seeking" employment. The number of those without jobs is technically 50%, but that inherently means little when taking into account that not everyone does that work thing their entire life.
Under employed might as well be unemployed when it comes to the economy though. People working part time don't even make enough to pay the bills. They aren't going to be pouring money into the economy.
It's an important metric, but not altogether the same. I would rather be working fewer hours than desired than none at all.
Gallup also hovers around 9% as well - and underemployment is not unemployment.
coolbeans90
I never said unemployment I said 20% without jobs. The number of people without jobs and the number of people unemployed are two completely different numbers. Those that have stopped looking for jobs, were denyed unemployment, let benefits expire and got part time low paying jobs are not counted in the unemployment numbers. The current unemployment number is like 9.5% those without jobs is much higher.
Unemployment - by very definition, is people who have no work, not too little work. You said people with no jobs (that presumably want one) is 20%: unemployment. Those denied unemployment checks are taken in w. Gallup surveys provided they are "seeking" employment. The number of those without jobs is technically 50%, but that inherently means little when taking into account that not everyone does that work thing their entire life.
The government definition of unemployment only counts those actively seeking employment through the government system. It doesn't include those who never get in the system or once were in the system and have given up. The 'official' unemployment numbers are one the most inaccurate stats. the government provides but there really isn't anything else to take its place.
Unemployment - by very definition, is people who have no work, not too little work. You said people with no jobs (that presumably want one) is 20%: unemployment. Those denied unemployment checks are taken in w. Gallup surveys provided they are "seeking" employment. The number of those without jobs is technically 50%, but that inherently means little when taking into account that not everyone does that work thing their entire life.
coolbeans90
Under employed might as well be unemployed when it comes to the economy though. People working part time don't even make enough to pay the bills. They aren't going to be pouring money into the economy.
It's an important metric, but not altogether the same. I would rather be working fewer hours than desired than none at all.
Correct. But for people that require a full-time worth of pay and aren't getting it, are not putting money into the economy and thus might as well be unemployed in terms of their benefit to anyone outside of themselves.
Unemployment - by very definition, is people who have no work, not too little work. You said people with no jobs (that presumably want one) is 20%: unemployment. Those denied unemployment checks are taken in w. Gallup surveys provided they are "seeking" employment. The number of those without jobs is technically 50%, but that inherently means little when taking into account that not everyone does that work thing their entire life.
coolbeans90
Under employed might as well be unemployed when it comes to the economy though. People working part time don't even make enough to pay the bills. They aren't going to be pouring money into the economy.
It's an important metric, but not altogether the same. I would rather be working fewer hours than desired than none at all.
Politically underemployed and unemployed are equally bad. The people that say they are underemployed in polls are pissed at their situation. That number is 18.5% the last time I checked. You can't win reelection with numbers like that.
[QUOTE="ferrari2001"] I never said unemployment I said 20% without jobs. The number of people without jobs and the number of people unemployed are two completely different numbers. Those that have stopped looking for jobs, were denyed unemployment, let benefits expire and got part time low paying jobs are not counted in the unemployment numbers. The current unemployment number is like 9.5% those without jobs is much higher. KC_Hokie
Unemployment - by very definition, is people who have no work, not too little work. You said people with no jobs (that presumably want one) is 20%: unemployment. Those denied unemployment checks are taken in w. Gallup surveys provided they are "seeking" employment. The number of those without jobs is technically 50%, but that inherently means little when taking into account that not everyone does that work thing their entire life.
The government definition of unemployment only counts those actively seeking employment through the government system. It doesn't include those who never get in the system or once were in the system and have given up. The 'official' unemployment numbers are one the most inaccurate stats. the government provides but there really isn't anything else to take its place.
Gallup gets roughly the same (and doesn't take into account unemployment benefit status) - and is more believable than people randomly tossing numbers like 20%
[QUOTE="Pirate700"]Under employed might as well be unemployed when it comes to the economy though. People working part time don't even make enough to pay the bills. They aren't going to be pouring money into the economy.
KC_Hokie
It's an important metric, but not altogether the same. I would rather be working fewer hours than desired than none at all.
Politically underemployed and unemployed are equally bad. The people that say they are underemployed in polls are pissed at their situation. That number is 18.5% the last time I checked. You can't win reelection with numbers like that.
Well, obviously the political implications of both will royally screw the incumbent party, but that's not the argument I'm making.
Unemployment - by very definition, is people who have no work, not too little work. You said people with no jobs (that presumably want one) is 20%: unemployment. Those denied unemployment checks are taken in w. Gallup surveys provided they are "seeking" employment. The number of those without jobs is technically 50%, but that inherently means little when taking into account that not everyone does that work thing their entire life.
coolbeans90
The government definition of unemployment only counts those actively seeking employment through the government system. It doesn't include those who never get in the system or once were in the system and have given up. The 'official' unemployment numbers are one the most inaccurate stats. the government provides but there really isn't anything else to take its place.
Gallup gets roughly the same (and doesn't take into account unemployment benefit status) - and is more believable than people randomly tossing numbers like 20%
20% is underemployed not unemployed according to polls.
It's an important metric, but not altogether the same. I would rather be working fewer hours than desired than none at all.
coolbeans90
Politically underemployed and unemployed are equally bad. The people that say they are underemployed in polls are pissed at their situation. That number is 18.5% the last time I checked. You can't win reelection with numbers like that.
Well, obviously the political implications of both will royally screw the incumbent party, but that's not the argument I'm making.
I think we all understand underemployment is not unemployment. We're just saying they are one in the same when it comes to economic impact.
It's an important metric, but not altogether the same. I would rather be working fewer hours than desired than none at all.
coolbeans90
Politically underemployed and unemployed are equally bad. The people that say they are underemployed in polls are pissed at their situation. That number is 18.5% the last time I checked. You can't win reelection with numbers like that.
Well, obviously the political implications of both will royally screw the incumbent party, but that's not the argument I'm making.
Yup. Obama is in a world of hurt politically. He wouldn't win against any of the top four GOP candidates right now. And on top of that the electoral map changes for 2012 which will benefit republicans.
[QUOTE="Pirate700"]Under employed might as well be unemployed when it comes to the economy though. People working part time don't even make enough to pay the bills. They aren't going to be pouring money into the economy.
Pirate700
It's an important metric, but not altogether the same. I would rather be working fewer hours than desired than none at all.
Correct. But for people that require a full-time worth of pay and aren't getting it, are not putting money into the economy and thus might as well be unemployed in terms of their benefit to anyone outside of themselves.
Other than themselves would than likely be a ratio of: (current rate of expenditures) divided by (the expenditures which would occur while working full time), all other factors held constant.
Romney may be the best shot, but it wasn't that long ago he was forgetting which side he was on. Might be one of those RINO's that the right has been fearing so much.
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Politically underemployed and unemployed are equally bad. The people that say they are underemployed in polls are pissed at their situation. That number is 18.5% the last time I checked. You can't win reelection with numbers like that.Pirate700
Well, obviously the political implications of both will royally screw the incumbent party, but that's not the argument I'm making.
I think we all understand underemployment is not unemployment. We're just saying they are one in the same when it comes to economic impact.
Romney may be the best shot, but it wasn't that long ago he was forgetting which side he was on. Might be one of those RINO's that the right has been fearing so much.Romney is a RINO and neo-Con. Scary combination.
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Politically underemployed and unemployed are equally bad. The people that say they are underemployed in polls are pissed at their situation. That number is 18.5% the last time I checked. You can't win reelection with numbers like that.KC_Hokie
Well, obviously the political implications of both will royally screw the incumbent party, but that's not the argument I'm making.
Yup. Obama is in a world of hurt politically. He wouldn't win against any of the top four GOP candidates right now. And on top of that the electoral map changes for 2012 which will benefit republicans.
Actually according to current polls, he would win against any of them except maybe Romney. Obviously that can change over the next year, but how it will change and in what direction remains to be seen.
Log in to comment