Democrats & Liberals Archives

Final Jobs Report Caps Off Four Months of Decent Job Growth

Unemployment ticked up slightly to 7.9% as job growth continued with 171,000 new jobs and a four month total of 692,000 jobs. This final report before the election may or may not sway some last minute voters but it’s a decent report in the end and a good cap to President Obama’s four years in office.

In February 2009, the first reference week after Senator Obama became President Obama, unemployment was already 8.3%. It would be 8 more months before unemployment peaked at 10% and three more long years before unemployment would reach below that level to where it was last month and where it sits today.

Democrats very much like to tout this job growth under Obama as a strength. To understand the argument we have to go back to the start. In the 12 months before Obama took office 4.4 million jobs were lost. In the first 12 months of his term another 4.3 million jobs would be gone. Those 8.7 million jobs struck a devastating blow to an economy that had only finally recovered from the previous recession when the new one began.

The next 12 months would be a bit better for job growth. The economy added back about 1.2 million jobs in that time. The 12 months after that would see 2 million more jobs added. This last 12 months will finish at an even better level. All in all President Obama will have seen a net increase of somewhere between 500,000 and 1 million jobs in his first term depending on how the year finishes and on benchmark revisions made by BLS early next year.

Obviously this is no Reagan recovery. President Reagan had a net increase of 1.9 million in his first term making a strong case for his re-election campaign. But let's consider President George W. Bush who saw a net decrease of 13,000 jobs in his first term. President Obama's job growth started in a hole and still blew President Bush out of the water.

Republicans in critiquing Obama will ignore this turnaround in job growth and instead focus on the unemployment number which has only recently started to recover and even in that recovery they find reason to doubt. They've made up a magical 8% unemployment level for which they say no president has ever been re-elected. I'm still looking for a president that ran for re-election with 8% unemployment. The whole idea is bogus but it gave them grounds to call the drop from 8.1% to 7.8% a conspiracy and in doing so embarrass themselves again for several news cycles.

Indeed though, the unemployment rate has been slow to recover. It peaked at 10% in October 2009 and it would take three more years to decline to it's current level which is still too high by all accounts. Much of the decline over that time was from folks leaving the workforce for one reason or another. Only in the last few months have we seen seen declines related completely to a growing workforce and a growing number of employed persons. It's a good sign.

So this report caps off four mixed years of economic news for President Obama. He would have loved to make a stronger economic case but this is what he gets and this is what he has to close with. He's seen a return to job growth and a decline in chronic unemployment. Despite losing 4 million jobs in the first year of his term he saw a turnaround that created over 5 million jobs in the next three years. The president finishes his term with an economy that is on the mend and poised for growth but still faces tough challenges in the way of debt and spending.

Now we see the potential for two different stories to unfold. One is the story of President Carter who failed to win re-election and has been saddled with blame for all the negative things done by his administration to control inflation at the expense of the near term growth of the economy. Had Carter won he might have been given credit for much of the success we saw under Reagan that was as much to do with the times as it was to do with Reagan's policies.

The other story is the one of President Clinton who's first term was no real economic success but saw the beginnings of a foundation for strong growth of the next four years. In winning a second term he was around to take credit for what otherwise would have been hailed as some great Republican success story. Republicans still argue it was Gingrich and company who deserves credit but they've failed to convince most Americans of that because the president is the face of the economy.

So who will Obama be in the end? His entire legacy likely hinges on next Tuesday. Conservatives are hoping, praying it's Jimmy Carter who Obama is compared to. They've been comparing him to Carter from day one just in case. Democrats very much want to be able to compare Obama to Clinton. In fact Obama has built his case for re-election largely around the image of President Clinton's second term. The political stakes are clear and the spin that follows will no doubt set the tone of our history books for this decade.

Posted by Adam Ducker at November 2, 2012 8:31 AM
Comments
Comment #356211

Adam

High unemployment, TV full of pictures of long lines at gas stations, debacle in the Middle East, for those of us who recall November 1980 it seems very familiar. I think that Obama is very Carter-like. Both came from relative obscurity; both promised much more than they delivered and both disappointed both their followers and independents.

I am hoping that the parallel holds on November 6.

Posted by: C&J at November 2, 2012 10:03 AM
Comment #356212

That folks were saying “Welcome back Carter” the minute Obama took office tells me all I need to know about that comparison. Your side wanted him to be Carter so of course you’ve seen everything in that lens. If the polls are any indication then Romney is falling just short of your goal of defining President Obama on your terms.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 2, 2012 10:09 AM
Comment #356214

Adam

Maybe Obama is too much like Carter, but I am not sure Romney is enough like Reagan.

This seems like kind of a pale replay of 1980.

Posted by: C&J at November 2, 2012 10:41 AM
Comment #356216

C&J-
You need him to be Carter, but the comparisons are both transparent in their motivation, and pretty obvious in their differences.

If we’re recapitulating Reagan, by the way, do you plan on starting a recession in Summer 2013, raising unemployment up to 10.8% and keeping it up in that range for the better part of a year? The irony of the Carter situation is that Carter beat Reagan on Job creation overall, despite the recession which likely cost Carter the Presidency. Overall, Reagan’s first term was a wash in terms of unemployment.

But both Carter and Reagan’s recessions were mild in comparison to Obama’s, and I think people are factoring that in. Also, Obama made a very smart gamble, and put America on a better footing to recover. We’d still be down below the break-even point if Obama had let Detroit fail.

As for long lines at gas stations, you’re not seeing that. OPEC hasn’t shut off the valve. Gas prices are higher than they were, but that’s largely due to speculative forces the previous president unleashed, and the fact that developing countries see more cars on the roadway.

As for the debacle in the Middle East? Look, when students stormed the American Embassy in Teheran, and took hostages for well over a year, did you see protestors taking up our side? No. But in Libya, after we were attacked, they did. Folks actually came out and said, we’re sorry this happened, and even better than that, mobbed the folks they thought responsible!

So, you tell me, do those situations really compare? Was it a nation turning against us, in that attack, or was it a small group of jihadist militia men using the excuse of a video to do what they wanted to do anyways, despite what most Libyans think of Americans?

One of the critical things this president has done, has been to side with, rather than against popular uprisings against dictators. It’s been seen as practical to do so, but in a way, it’s fundamentally naive. It allows radical elements to operate without the friction of real world issues to wear down their sharp edges, and it pits America against most of the populations of these countries. Is it any surprise that we see terrorists and radical islamists rise from their ranks?

We need to get people on our side, not just governments.

As for the jobs report, according to my calculations Obama is officially a job creator now, something Bush couldn’t claim for his first term. In fact, Bush was over 300,000 jobs down at this same point eight years ago.

If you took all the months that Bush added jobs in his first term, and all the months that Obama added jobs Obama’s would be 174% greater. Obama’s basic problem, to be frank, is the first year. 92% of all jobs he lost, he lost at that time.

So, Obama comes from further behind than a President whose policies you vociferously supported. I think that puts things in proper context. I think it’s foolish to switch back to much less effective Bush policies.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 2, 2012 11:20 AM
Comment #356219

C&J writes in his post, “This is the last report before the election and we have once again gone backwards.” This is no doubt the line Romney will use today some time.


I wonder what the right would have written under Reagan when unemployment was 7.3% in September 1984 and grew to 7.4% in October 1984. In fact it was 7.2% in June 1984 before it grew to 7.5% in July 1984. Oh that Reagan recovery, moving backward, not forward, creating fewer jobs in October than September! Throw the bum out!

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 2, 2012 11:58 AM
Comment #356221

Why I didn’t vote for Obama:

“President Bush dropped a big turd in Obama’s punch bowl…not doubt about it. The two of them together came up with a bailout plan. It was expensive. Our debt has doubled, but since then the boneheaded moves O has made have turned me against him.

He appoints the head of General Electric, one of the largest exporters of U.S. jobs, to the Federal Reserve Board.

He gives banks billions, but does not dictate that the money be used for loans to stimulate the economy. The banks are not loaning; have not been loaning. They used the money instead to play the stock market and hedge on oil. O’s own market oversee’er, Bart Chilton, says that this hedging on crude has added up to $14 to a tank of gas.

He gives billions to private companies that are destined for failure…one of which is a car company making cars in Scandanavia, I believe.

He spends his first two years, with Dem’s controlling both houses, pushing through a controversail healthcare plan instead of creating jobs. When he lost control of the House, he has chosen to say he can’t get anything done. Plenty of Presidents have been able to in similar siutations, but not this one. It is everyone else’s fault.

The job plans he has proposed revolve around more policeman, more firefighters, more teachers and more public work projects. All would require the taxpayers picking up the payroll, not private enterprise. I hope you can see what this does not help. Why don’t we all just hand money out of our pocket to someone out of a job instead of running it through the federal government first. This is about what his plans amount to. GNP would not go anywhere.

SEAL’s kill bin Laden, but all I hear is “I and me”…this and leaked details to further embellish the story. When the SEAL’s version is released, there are all sorts of holes shot in the “offical” report initially given.

The tragedy in Libya happened almost three weeks ago. There were a limited number of people involved in communications transpiring during the actual attack. Some White House, some State Department, some CIA, some on the ground in Bengazi. Considering the importance of clearing the air and showing total transparency, what is taking so long? The details of the bin Laden raid were almost instantaneous.”

No lies here. Just debatable issues.

Posted by: John Johnson at November 2, 2012 11:59 AM
Comment #356223

Why would anyone be talking about Carter & Reagan? We only have to go back to October 2008 to see the Bush administration ending with 489,000 jobs lost, just for that month alone. That’s right. 489,000.

Now, some of you voted for Bush twice, and after achieving that result, you voted for McCain anyway. And now you’re unhappy with over 170,000 jobs created?

Posted by: phx8 at November 2, 2012 12:05 PM
Comment #356226

John Johnson-
Let’s start with Libya. The lie on the right is that somehow, when we’re attacked, when we’re blindsided by a militant militia, we’re going to have all our facts straight, the way we might if we were, say, leading the attack ourselves with special forces directly connected to a White House that is monitoring the situation long before it even starts.

Republicans have forgotten how much they used “fog of war” to excuse the way the war, which killed over 4000 Americans, to excuse the degeneration of that situation. Rumsfeld talking about known unknowns, and all that other stuff. But of course, forgetting what you said a few years ago is par for the course for Republicans these days, which is why Mitt Romney enjoys such solid support.

You talk of clearing the air, but all the right has done is muddy the waters, trying to turn what anybody would tell you is a chaotic situation into one where everybody should have known absolutely everything about what was happening.

All to avoid admitting that candidate Romney was wrong to step into an incident like that an politicize it. Even Reagan wasn’t stupid enough to criticize the President over the takeover of the embassy when it happened.

As far as the Bin Laden things go, here’s another case of Republicans trying to defused another bit of substance that makes Obama look good. Oh, he’s taking too much credit for it. Really? He always salutes the soldiers who took him down when he talks about it, and he’s been clear that they did a great job. And really, do these guys have any notion of the civilian chain of command, about how closely this was all being monitored?

You can’t do something like this without the President involved, and this President’s involvement meant it got done, and done right.

As far as jobs go, really, your side was all for first responders and teachers when they were running deficits in better economic times. But now you have to defy substance, and make yourselves look like wise fiscal stewards. So, what do you do? You wield an axe, instead of a scalpel, and undermine basic services people count upon. There is plenty of documented evidence of how public sector job cuts have been a hindrance to our recovery. If not for them, we would be approaching a million jobs created during the Obama Administration. This is the first time people have done that during a recession in a long time, and the results don’t seem to favor it being done again.

You folks see this divide in economic activity between private and public sector, and this divide in terms of union jobs versus non union that the economy itself doesn’t see. A job gained is a job gained, and a dollar that drives this economy is a dollar. You’ve put your agenda ahead of our economy, and the slowness of the recovery is a consequence of that.

As far as control of the houses go, the Republican have mounted an unprecedented campaign of obstruction, with literally hundreds of examples of filibusters and holds in the Senate. More to the point, do you actually hear your own rhetoric? Do you folks actually sound like a party in the mood to cooperate with anybody else? Does your party sound like one which will brook compromises, or does it sound like one which will punish those who try to reach across the aisle, or defy party orthodoxy. It’s a lie to say both sides are equally responsible, and Democrats had only a brief window of six months to get done what we needed to do.

And what you fail to remember is the reason that healthcare dragged on: we were negotiating with your side! Remember the Gang of Six? We could have gotten things done much faster if your side was bargaining in good faith, but it wasn’t, and as such, we were eventually forced to go it alone, but not until the whole Tea Party thing had been stirred up.

As for the loans? Again, a faulty memory. Bush asked for TARP, and insisted on pain of veto that it not have any provision requiring loans to be made. Eager to dump responsibility for things onto Obama?

As for jobs? Whoever he hired to one board or another, Obama’s record is clear: greater job growth after the recession than Bush had his whole first term, not to mention being on the positive side of that ledger, and many of those jobs in manufacturing and technology, where otherwise they would have been somewhere overseas.

You, sir, are the victim of bad information and worse politics.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 2, 2012 12:41 PM
Comment #356229

Adam

“I wonder what the right would have written under Reagan when unemployment was 7.3% in September 1984 and grew to 7.4% in October 1984.”

I don’t recall exactly, but I bet the right defended the number, as you have and the left attacked it as a terrible blight.

The big difference between then an now is that the public was accustomed to unemployment of around that 7% number, since they had experienced it for ten years. Today, we remember unemployment in the 5% range.

Stephen

Re Libya - I have defended Obama against the idea that he messed up in the original incident. The problem was the cover up. Instead of being honest, the administration pushed that movie idea.

Posted by: C&J at November 2, 2012 1:12 PM
Comment #356231

C&J-
There was no cover up. The documents that your cretinous Representative Issa released without a decent security review showed that CIA was telling Obama, with some justification, that the movie was a motivation for the attack.

The administration was being honest, even if it was wrong. Republicans are simply trying to squeeze blood from a stone, create scandals in an administration that has been more scrupulous than most of recent times.

Your side simply has created controversy where none should have been. Unfortunately for you, reality has a way of straightening out misunderstandings, often at the expense of those who try to create them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 2, 2012 1:21 PM
Comment #356232
obviously this is no Reagan recovery.

Just as obvious this was no Reagan recession. This was a financial meltdown, a systematic failure.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/01/bill-clinton-economist-kenneth-rogoff-obama_n_2061734.html

Posted by: j2t2 at November 2, 2012 1:32 PM
Comment #356233

C&J: “The big difference between then an now is that the public was accustomed to unemployment of around that 7% number, since they had experienced it for ten years. Today, we remember unemployment in the 5% range.”

The bottom line is Reagan moved unemployment just a 10th lower than where he found it at this time in his term in office. It’s up just a 10th for Obama right now. That kind of change earns Reagan your praise and Obama your scorn and for no reason other than spin. Obama’s recovery has been about 50% less robust than Reagan’s but we know Reagan had at least 50% fewer economic problems to recover from. I’d say it’s not a bad result for Obama. It might just be enough to earn him four more years.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 2, 2012 1:50 PM
Comment #356234

phx8 and j2t2,
Thank you. Anyone trying to compare what happened during the Reagan years with what we’ve seen as the result of total financial meltdown is being either transparently stupid, or willfully dishonest.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 2, 2012 1:52 PM
Comment #356236

I’m not comparing Obama’s years to anyone else’s. I listed my reasons for not wanting him back. Stephen lamely tried to dispute a few…let the others go without comment. Nothing specific except to say that Bush was the one to insist that the Banks not be required to loan TARP money. That is new to me. I’ll check on it.

I’ll let others decide how much has merit. That’s what I post. It is not to change the Neck Nuzzlers’ minds. They are too far gone.

Posted by: John Johnson at November 2, 2012 2:02 PM
Comment #356239

Adam

I am not saying it is fair to Obama, but it does depend on where you are coming from. For Reagan we were coming off ten years of bad times. It looked good. For Obama we were coming off twenty-five years of good times. It looked bad. This is even true of the actual unemployment rate. If it had come DOWN from 8% it would look much better than it coming up from 7.8%. Not right, but perception. Too back for Barack.

It reminds me of the story told during the bad old communist days. Two travelers set off in opposite directions. One is going by train from Moscow to Paris the other from Paris to Moscow. They fall asleep and both wake up in Warsaw where both think they have arrived.

Warsaw, BTW, is now a very nice city again now that the communists have been chased out, but you get the point.

The other thing I dislike about Obama and what I like about Reagan is attitude. Reagan was positive. He talked up America. Obama is always talking about how tough his life is. I like happier people. Downers like Obama are just annoying, even if they are right.

Posted by: C&J at November 2, 2012 2:15 PM
Comment #356241

C&J: “Obama is always talking about how tough his life is.”

Is he though?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 2, 2012 2:53 PM
Comment #356243

John Johnson-
We have a comparative choice to make. It’s not simply a choice between two Presidents, but two sets of policies. It’s fair to ask why Romney’s policies would be an improvement. The last time we failed to figure that question out, we ended up electing a President whose choices made life more difficult for every American.

The fact that Romney thinks he has to befuddle people with BS on the auto bailout shows how much he knows that the choice matters for people. The fact that he decided to lie shamelessly about his own tax cuts, rather than just tell people he was going to try what both Reagan and the Bushes did, tells you that he knows people are dubious about the benefits of the tax cuts, or the ability of somebody to make those cuts and balanced the budget any better.

He’s making it a referendum on policies, but he won’t be straight with us on what either his policies or Obama’s policies are. His lack of faith in the facts to support him tell us something.

C&J-
Good times? No, not from the perspective of many. From the end of the old Pax Americana with 9/11, the end of the real boom market and runaway job creation, to the beginning of America’s longest wars, folks look at the beginning of the last decade as the turning point.

People sought out Obama as a change from that, and his struggles have been due to the slow progress in putting Bush’s policies behind us.

As for unemployment, it ticked up because there were more people looking for work, and if you look at the U6 numbers, fewer people discouraged, or in part-time jobs when they’d like to do better than that.

As for Attitude? Your people could take a cue from Reagan, in terms of demeanor. Too many of them lack charm, lack wit. You accuse of Obama of being a downer, but I don’t see why. He talks about hope, he talks about what he’s done to improve things. He emphasizes positive virtues in his speeches, and a sense that we have to work to get the things that we want.

He’s not a downer to listen to. He can get people excited about being part of the process. Romney doesn’t have the empathy to be like Reagan. He’s not got Reagan’s background to back him up, nor Reagan’s skill at dealing with an audience. He’s a wannabe Reagan.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 2, 2012 3:21 PM
Comment #356245
He appoints the head of General Electric, one of the largest exporters of U.S. jobs, to the Federal Reserve Board.

Wrong John.

He gives banks billions, but does not dictate that the money be used for loans to stimulate the economy.

The TARP was signed into law before Obama was sworn into office John.

He gives billions to private companies that are destined for failure…one of which is a car company making cars in Scandanavia, I believe.


Wrong and wrong John.
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/09/20/solyndra-facts-lies/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/20/mitt-romney/romney-ad-says-stimulus-money-went-buy-electric-ca/

Posted by: j2t2 at November 2, 2012 3:39 PM
Comment #356246

Obama inherited economic problems from Bush, but Obama and the Democrats must be the last ones to complain about that, because they claimed, either honestly or dishonestly, that they were ready, willing, and able to meaningfully lower unemployment, reduce the budget deficit, pay off the national debt, and improve the economy.

They cannot blame anyone else if they deliberately would not, or even could not make progress on these problems.

These problems are worse after 4 years of Obama and the Democrats, and they must be judged by their performance, and not by using Bush as a scapegoat or an excuse, because they put their hand up to do the job, and they must take full responsibility for their dismal performance.

That is a full responsibility in a Democracy, and the other full responsibility in a Democracy is for the Voters not to Vote for those Individuals or Political Party that did not make progress on lowering unemployment, reducing the budget deficit, paying off the national debt, and on improving the economy.

We know that Obama and the Democrats gave their Campaign Donors much of the borrowed Trillions of Dollars in Stimulus Money that must be paid back with Interest, and it would be logical that a Secret Deal that these would employ a few People in Seasonal Temporary Employment just before the Elections, in order to make the economy look better than it really is.

Regarding Government Lies; they come in three groups with the lowest grade of Lies simply called Lies; then the higher order of Lies are called Damned Lies, and the highest order of Lies are called Statistics.

Obama and the Democrats have failed dismally to make any progress on lowering unemployment, reducing the budget deficit, paying off the national debt, and on improving the economy, and all these matters have become worse during the last 4 years, with 15 % as the real employment rate.

The Voters have a Responsibility to the Nation and a responsibility to their Families and Neighbors not to Vote for Obama and the Democrats because of these Facts.

If Voters fail to fulfill their responsibility to the Nation and to their Families, Families, and Neighbors, then it encourages the Politicians to perform poorly, and there will be consequences for that, as they can see with the last 4 years.

Obama and the Democrats say that they are taking America Forward, but forward to where, and they speak that Lie of Forward, because in reality they have taken America Downwards.

It is more correct to use the word Downwards rather than Backwards with regards to lowering unemployment, reducing the budget deficit, paying off the national debt, and on improving the economy.

We see statues of Communist Leaders, and one hand is always pointing Forward, but History proves that they have gone Downwards, while deceiving their citizens that they were going Forward.

America needs to go Backwards, and that is back to basic and proper principles of the American Constitution, and the Free Enterprise Market Economy, in order to go Upwards.

Once America follows the American Constitution, and the Free Enterprise Market Economy, then it needs to stay there, and there is no need to go ‘forward’ or ‘backward’, if America wishes to act wisely, because there is in reality just upwards or downwards, rather than the deceitful forwards or backwards.

A reliable expert on these matters has a Video Titled, The Illusion Of Economic Recovery Is Beginning To Fade at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNS24ZzY0lY , and his YouTube Channel is at http://www.youtube.com/user/GregVegas5909?feature=watch , and we can see that the economy is being propped up with Money printing because of the Elections, but this is unsustainable for much longer.

If Americans want Economic Recovery, then they will not vote for Obama or the Democrats at these Elections.

Posted by: Election at November 2, 2012 3:45 PM
Comment #356248

“You accuse of Obama of being a downer, but I don’t see why.”

I would simply ask you to review some of the negative statements about this country made by obama while on trips in other countries.

I would simply remind you that obama’s entire campaign for reelection rests on blaming someone else for his failures.

I would simply remind you of the millions who are unemployed, who have lost their homes, who now depend upon food stamps to feed their families, and all the college grads who can’t find any work.

I would simply remind you of an additional $6 trillion in debt that must be repaid with no reasonable return for all the money spent.

I would simply remind you of a president who couldn’t properly honor our flag for a period of time.

I would simply remind you of a president who, when faced with not getting our debt limit increased, threatened those on Social Security by telling them they may not receive their checks.

I would simply remind you of a president who makes decisions on which laws to enforce and which laws to ignore.

I would simply remind you of a president and administration that could not protect a US ambassador, and those trying to protect him, from being murdered. And a president who now, after six weeks, still can not tell the American people why.

I would simply say…this man does not deserve to keep his job.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 2, 2012 4:19 PM
Comment #356250

Royal Flush,
I would simply remind you the polls that came out today show Obama with leads in every swing state, and Obama is posed to take at least 303, and probably 332 electoral votes.

Apparently the American people approve.

And Americans are not blaming “someone else” for previous failures. They’re blaming Bush. They’re blaming Republicans. They’re blaming conservatives. They’re blaming people just like you. So don’t hide behind vague phrases like “someone else.” Call it like it is. You can “simply remind” us of that anytime you’d like.

Here. Let me remind you of something:
October 2008: -459,000 jobs
October 2012: +171,000 jobs

Maybe you forgot, but those 459,000 jobs lost were lost under Bush. As a result of Republican policies. Conservative policies. Policies backed by people just. like. you.

Did you know Congressional Democrats are more popular than Congressional Republicans? But that the Tea Partiers are the most unpopular of all. Americans really, really dislike the Tea Party. Even more than Republicans. That takes some doing.

Let’s revisit this Tuesday. I’ll remind you.

Posted by: phx8@aol.com at November 2, 2012 4:41 PM
Comment #356251

j2t2…

One link from some obviously left leaning propaganda mill on Solyndra, and the other, which parses words. Fisker, the automotive company got money from the U.S. as a loan instead of a grant. They are produced in Scandinavia, and the battery company in the U.S. that was supposed to supply batteries for these cars also got Fed money. They have, like Solyndra, already declared bankruptcy.

Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of General Electric, served on the New York Fed’s Board of Directors until 2011.

Looks like you are right about the TARP money. Bush gave money to the banks and allowed unfettered use of the funds.
Obama took the other half and bailed out GM and Chrysler, which stiffed the bondholders, but saved the union jobs.

Posted by: John Johnson at November 2, 2012 4:48 PM
Comment #356252

phx8 writes; “Did you know Congressional Democrats are more popular than Congressional Republicans? But that the Tea Partiers are the most unpopular of all. Americans really, really dislike the Tea Party.”

Really…when was the 2010 election undone? If retaking the house is an indication of unpopularity…

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 2, 2012 4:55 PM
Comment #356254

obama’s administration is doing a terrible job in getting help to the North East. With at least a week’s warning, what is their excuse?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 2, 2012 4:59 PM
Comment #356255

Let’s revisit this Tuesday. I’ll remind you.
Posted by: phx8@aol.com at November 2, 2012

OK, but Wednesday would be better as I don’t plan on staying up all night Tuesday. I promise I won’t gloat if the Reps have a good night. Should the dems do well, I’ll live with it.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 2, 2012 5:03 PM
Comment #356257

Election-
Okay, a number of things: the budget deficit is lower than when we started out, and its set to get lower still. Unemployment, which peaked at 10.0, is down 2.1%, and the workforce is expanding again. Obama has, more or less, created 4.8 Million jobs.

The economy is no longer on the edge of failure.

We’ve done far better than Bush did in his first term in a response to a recession much shallower than the one that struck us.

You say “we know”, and these are dangerous words in the hands of conservatives, because they often claim that “we know” things when they should be say “I think/believe this.”

As for this secret deal to put more people in seasonal employment, apart from being so secret nobody else has heard of it, the BLS numbers are seasonally adjusted numbers. In other words, when they figure out it’s 7.9%, they’ve already factored out the layoffs and hiring that would create your purported effect. So what you say “we know” about seasonal employment’s effect on the unemployment numbers is not just wrong, but ignorantly wrong, meaning you wouldn’t have said this, if you actually knew what you were talking about.

As for “real unemployment”, or U6, if you’re really being honest with people, it’s actually gone down thirty percent faster than U3, which indicates that more of these jobs are full-time jobs, as opposed to just part-time or temp work.

You folks recite these mantras of things you’ve heard from trusted sources. The problem is, you’ve been misled, often by people with vested interests. I have to wonder what this Gregory Mannarino does to make his money, even as he advises people to buy into commodities like gold and silver.

We don’t need to go backwards. In fact, I don’t really think we’re capable of running an economy like ours the way folks ran it in previous centuries. Fact of the matter is, basic infrastructure changes, like that of the internet have changed the way business is done, and also changed how quickly problems can spread, and how deep in the dark they can keep everybody else.

The trouble is, the market is not so simple, and maybe never was, so that information could flow perfectly to allow everybody in the market to make their wisest decisions. People commit fraud, act from conflicts of interest, and do things in one division that risk the existence of otherwise well run divisions apart from them.

As for this free enterprise market economy, it’s a joke. We once had an economy we said was a free market economy, and we defeated communism under such a system. But some folks have decided to redefine everything, to the point you could argue we spend much of the twentieth century virtually Soviets ourselves.

It’s time to realize that even a free market, where people are typically left to make financial and consumer judgments for themselves, needs laws, and that without them, the financial foundations of our prosperity are a foundation of shifting sand.

If Americans want recovery, they will continue to vote for folks like Obama, because the folks like Romney simply have no notion of just how deep their errors run.

Royal Flush-
Folks like you treat Obama’s foreign comments as overly critical because you yourself have not faced how bad things like Abu Ghraib, and the mistakes of the Iraq war made us look. Or, put another way, you folks are really clueless about what embarrassments you’ve put the country through. Obama mentioned them to say, we’re getting past that, and turning over a new leaf. You will see better from this country.

Obama’s campaign can’t, and hasn’t simply reminded people of where we were four years ago, it can and does point to where we are now, by comparison. Gaining jobs by the hundreds of thousands, rather than losing them. Growing, rather than in recession, and as of today, with a positive jobs record, rather than a negative one as Bush was re-elected with.

As for food stamps, at least people have them to keep from starvation. Folks like Ryan would do away with such programs on the mistaken notion that what holds poor people back is a lack of ambition, something that could be better motivated by a further descent into poverty and despair, they believe. My own recent troubles tell me that folks like you badly underestimate how motivated most people are not to be poor anymore, even with assistance.

The trouble is, you don’t always have the chance, the opportunity to do better.

As far as the additional debt goes, how about we make a deal: you carve out the tax cuts you are dying to keep, the costs of the wars you’re not really in a hurry to finish, and then remove the effect of the economic crisis, which would have knocked McCain’s budget on its ass, too, and then with what remains, we can talk about what Obama has contributed to the deficit, and what you would not.

As far as the flag goes, you’ve got a good memory for false controversy.

As far as the debt limit goes, you’ve got balls talking about threats being made. I mean really, your people forced that confrontation. It was needless. The President was telling people the truth: that if the treasury was not able to issue additional debt, the money to pay those checks wasn’t going to be there. If you think the President was lying, then like the previous commenter, you operate from a level of being ignorantly wrong. The most pressing reason we might have a recession, aside from Europe’s debt crisis, is the spending cuts that your side insisted on, in order to bring that crisis to a close.

So, in a very real way, Republicans have done, and will do the most damage to our recovery, and if they are allowed to further threaten our debt rating, they could do more still. I wonder how many times you can do this, before even the low information voters realize how radically reckless your people are.

As for the Ambassador? Your side treats the truth as something it knows right on the spot. Romney went out and held a press conference on the subject, even before it was known that the Ambassador was dead. And your side has rationalized and apologized for this shockingly tasteless political attack ever since.

So let me put it to you straight: Romney has done very little since his campaign began, and before then to merit gaining this office, and President Obama has done much to merit keeping that office.

As for the Northeast, it’s been just two or three days. Hold off the “Katrina, Part II” allegations until we’re somewhat further along! Nobody’s kidding themselves that this is going to get quickly worked out, or without pain and suffering. I know from my experience that recovery, even with the best organization, can be a slow and tedious, often frustrating process. But it comes, sooner or later.

John Johnson-
Solyndra is one of literally dozens of companies, if not hundreds, who have benefited from the Administration’s policies. It is one of the few to fail. When they were failing, the administration did not bail the company out, an odd move for people you say are going out of their way to please contributors, and hire them on as cronies.

You should take a look at FEMA, if you want an idea of the differences between the right and the left right now on this subject. Did you notice that Obama hired Craig Fugate, a career disaster relief worker, rather than someone like Michael Brown, or his predecessor, who won their office because of their work for Bush’s campaign?

Democrats are more about function when it comes to government. We want a system that works. Republicans don’t. They’re fine with people thinking government is doing a terrible job, even if it’s their own administrations screwing things up. We’re not.

Getting back to Fisker, yes they’re from elsewhere. But the contract they took on got them to build a factory here, and hire American workers. That was the point of the stimulus: create good jobs here.

As for union jobs? Why are you so picky? A job is a job, and making sure that we get all the jobs we can get should take precedent over partisan preferences that the jobs be separate from organized labor. The only reason to really punish organized labor in proposals stimulating job growth is a political dislike of such jobs.

Can we afford to be as selective as you are, just to promote your political policies? If you’re only going to support job growth and economic growth when it comes by politically convenient forms, then it’s really questionable that your people should be put in charge of growing the economy.

I mean, really, what would that have meant for the employment picture in 2012?

But let me remind you of something else: if GM and Chrysler, and potentially Ford went bankrupt, then the bondholders would have taken a complete and utter bath, because private investors wouldn’t have stepped in to help them refinance, and thus preserve their stake.

And really, protecting investors at the expense of jobs?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 2, 2012 5:28 PM
Comment #356258
obama’s administration is doing a terrible job in getting help to the North East. With at least a week’s warning, what is their excuse?
Actually, they’re doing a pretty good job considering the magnitude and scope of the disaster. I do feel for Staten Island though, but I blame Bloomberg. It was SO idiotic of him to go ahead with the NYC Marathon — he actually pulled generators and first responders off of the rescue effort for that sh*t. Thankfully, the gas situation in NY and NJ should improve very soon. Cuomo said on Thursday that tankers had finally been able to start reentering New York Harbor — and today a tanker carrying 2 million barrels of gasoline also arrived. Gasoline for cars and generators will make a huge difference. Posted by: Adrienne at November 2, 2012 5:32 PM
Comment #356260

I am constantly amazed at how expert Doughboy has become at parsing events and failures under the baton of obama. It must be all that practice that makes him so efficient. He has been defending this presidents failures for over two years now.

Everyone who votes expects some sort of payback whether financially or socially. The liberals expect more handouts by the feds, more attacks on religion, more squandering of scarce resources on MMGW, more reliance on government and less on self.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 2, 2012 5:47 PM
Comment #356262

Can anyone imagine turning away help getting electricity turned on simply because the volunteers are not union members. Only a callous vicious person could support such action…or, a liberal.

I wonder if Adrienne was in a tent at an OWS demonstration during the storm.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 2, 2012 5:52 PM
Comment #356263

More good news: I just read that Federal Emergency Management Agency Deputy Administrator Richard Serino and Janet Napolitano were sent to Staten Island today. That’s good — because they obviously are going to need that federal attention. I hope those two will give Bloomberg a swift kick in the behind over his neglect of Staten Island in favor of the idiotic decision to go forward with the marathon. I mean, how elitist can you be when over 100 people are now dead from this disaster? It would be like if New Orleans had held a freaking crab-fest a few days after Katrina!

Posted by: Adrienne at November 2, 2012 5:53 PM
Comment #356264
I wonder if Adrienne was in a tent at an OWS demonstration during the storm.

No, I was glued to my computer and my cellphone here in California. Reading the news and worriedly texting my family members and friends in New Jersey. I did not sleep at all that night. My sister and family and many other relatives are still without power, but happily my 80 year old mother who often uses an oxygen machine was fortunate enough to have her power restored only a day after the storm.
I’ve really got to hand it to PSE&G for working as hard and as they have been trying to restore power in NJ.

Btw, thanks once again for mentioning OWS. It’s good to remind people that 1% shouldn’t be allowed to ruin the economy and trash the lives of the American majority.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 2, 2012 6:04 PM
Comment #356266

John, Immelt was first appointed to the board in 2006.

http://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/news/aboutthefed/2011/an110428.html

None of these business were destined to fail. Like I have said your comments are rehashed bits of misinformation half truths and outright lies from Faux, Talk radio and the propaganda PACS. You don’t have to fall for them John. Learn instead of trying to teach us, learn the facts.

http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2012/10/15/want-fiskers-new-sedan-wait-a-little-longer/

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/05/stimulus-money-for-jobs-overseas/

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2012-fisker-karma-review

Posted by: j2t2 at November 2, 2012 6:09 PM
Comment #356267

Bloomberg cancelled the marathon. That was the right thing to do.

Posted by: phx8 at November 2, 2012 6:10 PM
Comment #356269

Stephen

The quarter century before 2007 was probably the best in the history of the world. Whether you liked it or not, median income in the U.S. rose; unemployment fell into the 5% range and stayed there for a long time. This is the comparison we make with Obama and Obama looks bad in comparison.

Re Obama being a downer - he is always looking at the down side, always complaining about how tough it is for him. I just dislike sad people. I avoid them if I can. I hope to be able to avoid Obama come January.

Re Reagan - Obama could take lessons from either Clinton or Reagan. It is much better to be upbeat.

Posted by: C&J at November 2, 2012 6:15 PM
Comment #356270

phx8, I’m really glad to hear that.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 2, 2012 6:16 PM
Comment #356271

Not only has obama oversaw four years in which unemployment has not been reduced, we have seen Americans medium family income drop $5000. The taxes set to automatically increase in January will devastate many millions of families struggling to make ends meet now.

obama’s great plan to bring us back is to tax the wealthy more. Such a simple plan from such a simple-minded man.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 2, 2012 6:23 PM
Comment #356274

Cuomo said on Thursday that tankers had finally been able to start reentering New York Harbor — and today a tanker carrying 2 million barrels of gasoline also arrived. Gasoline for cars and generators will make a huge difference. Posted by: Adrienne at November 2, 2012

OH…NO, not big oil coming to the rescue. I wonder how much of the electricity generation in the North East comes from nasty old coal? And, of course, there is big agriculture which will furnish the food to keep these people alive.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 2, 2012 6:44 PM
Comment #356275

Contraceptives will deliver the women’s vote for obama. Food stamps will deliver the poverty level vote. Deficit spending on union jobs will deliver their vote. Being black will deliver that vote. Allowing more illegals residence in this country will deliver the Hispanic vote. I could go on, but if I did it would mean that Romney will get only carry the Utah electoral vote.

People used to vote with their brains…guess that doesn’t matter any more.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 2, 2012 6:54 PM
Comment #356277

Royal Flush-
You tell me I’m wrong, I SHOW YOU that you are wrong. That’s where the “parsing events and failures” you refer to comes into play. I find the facts that make your argument untrue. And you give me plenty of opportunity to do so.

I mean, is there a single thing in that last paragraph that isn’t basically just unproven paranoid sentiment on your part? You’ve just curdled your political dogma into this kind of received wisdom, and you reject anything else that comes your way. Well, sorry, I can’t live with such limitations. I can’t deny global warming, knowing what I do about the continuous stream of record highs, and weather anomalies related to oceans and continents warmer than usual. I can’t stick my head in the sand, with the self-assurance you do.

As for efficiency, yes, practice arguing on logical grounds, on facts and figures on a constant basis for eight years has made me pretty good at finding the resources that test the off-the-wall conclusions of folks like you. Meanwhile you putter around repeating what the pundits say, and finding out next to nothing for yourself. So, where I can actively arguing on my own behalf politically speaking, you’re left having to repeat something I may already have the facts to prove false.

If you wonder what’s happened to your party, it’s that folks like Hannity and Limbaugh, and the whole FOXNews operation have made the conservative movement intellectually lazy, and creatively bankrupt. Only when you get real thinkers, people who can question things when they appear to be wrong, can you can get the folks whose policies are compelling, and good to boot. As long as all you have are leaders who just repeat a set dogma, then the best you get will be the folks who tell people what they want to hear.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 2, 2012 7:23 PM
Comment #356281

Watchbloggers, The Red Cross really needs blood at the moment. Can you donate? Money would be helpful too — if you can spare a bit, that is.

FEMA’s got info pages up for disaster survivors, and where people and businesses can apply for assistance:
Hurricane Sandy

Some more good news:

East Village Power On After Days Of Con Edison Work To Fix Outages From Hurricane Sandy

Posted by: Adrienne at November 2, 2012 8:18 PM
Comment #356292
big oil coming to the rescue.

It’d be nice if big oil would donate a few days of free gas to victims of this disaster who desperately need it.
I bet they won’t though.

I wonder how much of the electricity generation in the North East comes from nasty old coal?

Way too much. This nation needs to switch to sources of renewable energy. Coal mining methods and the burning of coal is absolutely terrible for all of us, and for our planet.

And, of course, there is big agriculture which will furnish the food to keep these people alive.

We also need to get away from the petroleum fertilizers big agriculture uses. It’s disgusting, and we actually don’t need it to grow healthy crops. Moreover, it’s bad for our health, it terrible for our water and oceans, and terrible for the health of our planet. Sustainable fertilizers are the answer.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 2, 2012 8:30 PM
Comment #356294

“obama’s great plan to bring us back is to tax the wealthy more. Such a simple plan from such a simple-minded man.”

Royal Flush,

This type of comment drives me nuts. Isn’t Romney proposing the same damn thing? He just does it by eliminating deductions and tax credits for upper incomes (above $100,000.00 adjusted income). Incredibly, Romney has been quite candid about that.

The only net difference is Obama’s plan will generate more revenue since he is not proposing a tax cut for middle and lower incomes.

Posted by: Rich at November 2, 2012 9:00 PM
Comment #356298

Adrienne, I’m sorry to hear that your family was caught in this awful situation, but am also thankful and glad for you that they weren’t physically harmed. There are just not words that can soften the monumental losses…..
I wonder if any nay-sayers will look at the climate-change theories and believe differently now……….probably not….sigh.

Posted by: jane doe at November 2, 2012 10:07 PM
Comment #356304

Thanks, Jane. My family and I feel very fortunate when we see what so many other people in NJ and NY are going through.
Family members have told me how incredibly frightening the hurricane was — and how unlike any other hurricane, even the bad ones, they remember. What they’ve told me about the experience only partially explains some of the photos of destruction and devastation I’ve seen. They were indeed very lucky it wasn’t closer them.

As for the nay-sayers on climate change, this is just the beginning of what the scientists have been describing to us for years. Some of these people may keep trying to deny what’s happening for a time, but eventually it’s going to visit their doorsteps too. Maybe then they’ll finally have to face the awful truth.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 2, 2012 10:43 PM
Comment #356305

Adrienne

W/o modern fertilizers and methods, about 2/3 of the world’s population would starve. We can ask for volunteers.

On the other hand,if we grow organic, we need to use a lot more land. One of the great things about modern farms is that they grow a lot more on less land.

Jane

We had such weather events before. How about this news report “in the Atlantic Ocean, four hurricanes were swirling simultaneously, an event never before recorded… . Wednesday night, one of the hurricanes slammed into New York City. At least 30 people were killed. Four days later, an even more powerful hurricane killed some 2,000 in and around Savannah, Ga.”

This from the time of President Grover Cleveland.

There are indeed things we should be doing. Most of this involves life style changes. We need no longer to insure buildings on low lying lands too.

But you know that American CO2 emissions have been dropping. Over the past six years, we have reduced CO2 emissions more than any other country. Generally, we have been doing very well since 2000. In 2006, we became the first country ever to reduce CO2 emissions during a period of robust economic growth. We are now down to 1992 levels and we will soon achieve our Kyoto goals, w/o having to sign on to that silly thing. There is good new from the U.S. Of course, there is a lot more bad news from China. By 2020, China alone will produce more CO2 than the whole world did in 1990. If U.S. emissions were zero, it would still not change the equation too much.

I may also add that our rapidly growing and well managed forests remove about 10% of the CO2 emissions. Each year, we plant about 2 billion trees.

Posted by: C&J at November 2, 2012 10:43 PM
Comment #356310
W/o modern fertilizers and methods, about 2/3 of the world’s population would starve. We can ask for volunteers.

On the other hand,if we grow organic, we need to use a lot more land. One of the great things about modern farms is that they grow a lot more on less land.

I don’t agree. I think vertical farming is going to be the future for feeding the worlds population. This kind of farming can be organic, and we will finally get away from needing to use destructive and disgusting petroleum fertilizers. The use of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides can also be kept to a bare minimum. This method of food production is also going slash transport costs and the carbon-dioxide emissions that are associated with moving food over far distances. In fact, even people living in deserts will be capable of producing much of their food.

Check it out:
The Vertical Farm

Btw, some nations are already putting this concept of farming into effect.
Vertical Farming

Posted by: Adrienne at November 2, 2012 11:32 PM
Comment #356312
We had such weather events before.

Not true. This storm was unprecedented on many levels.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 2, 2012 11:48 PM
Comment #356314

The new job figures are misleading. No where near the same pay. Less benefits. I read where each job this administration says it created has cost U.S. taxpayers $278,000. What in the world is he bragging about.

I should have learned to weld. They are going to use Chinese welders on a bridge in California. Go figure. These last four years have been a total waste as far as I’m concerned. I’m looking for change. President Obama did not keep his promises. I’ll give Romney a chance to see if he will keep his.

Posted by: George Washington Carver at November 3, 2012 12:02 AM
Comment #356317

George Washington Carver (Frank is that you?)

The new job figures are misleading.

No, you are.

According to the Associated Press:

U.S. employers added 171,000 jobs in October and hiring was stronger over the previous two months than first thought. The unemployment rate inched up to 7.9 percent from 7.8 percent in September.

The Labor Department’s last look at hiring before Tuesday’s election sketched a picture of a job market that is gradually gaining momentum after nearly stalling in the spring.

Since July, the economy has created an average of 173,000 jobs a month, up from 67,000 a month from April through June.

Most of the details in the report were positive. The government revised the jobs figures to show that 84,000 more jobs were added than previously estimated.

The gains in October were widespread across most industries. And the percentage of Americans working or looking for work rose for the second straight month.

The economy has added jobs for 25 straight months. There are now 580,000 more jobs than when Obama took office.

No where near the same pay.
Average hourly pay dipped a penny to $23.58.
These last four years have been a total waste as far as I’m concerned. I’m looking for change.

Four years ago the American economy was in state of complete and total collapse. Today, the ADP report said that private sector employers added 158,000 jobs in October 2012. The ADP report for October 2008 saw 157,000 jobs CUT — a number that was eventually revised upwards to 440,000 jobs LOST.

If you’re looking for a “change” back to the Republican Party, just remember how they laid “total waste” this nation four years ago.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 3, 2012 12:58 AM
Comment #356320

I’m talking about what I was making before I got laid off compared to now. Lot’s more than a penny. More hours, too. Big step down. Many like me. A reinvented self and not liking it. No opportunity for moving up that I can see.
Wife is part time. Don’t know how long it will last. Many say this is just way to keep from having to provide benefits.

Voted for Obama last time. Have already voted for Romney this time. I know Bush caused big part of this problem but not all of it. I know how much I owe and how hard it is to repay. I get five calls a day from collection agencies. How can the country spend its way out of debt if I can’t. Doesn’t make sense.

I don’t hear lots of specifics from Romney on getting revenues up, but he has given many options that are to be considered. I like several of them. Doing away with loopholes in tax code is one, and chopping subsidies is another. Congress will have to decide which ones get implemented.

I had already made up my mind to vote for Romney before the 4 men got killed, but what is being reported just reinforces that I had made the right decision. When someone asked yesterday why it is going to take two months to release a report on exactly what happened, I had no answer. I think everyone knows if the President wanted a report issued to clear the air, it could be done in a couple of days. The fact it is not makes President Obama look bad. If I had one of those State Department jobs in a shakey country, I would be thinking about changing jobs. I guess “no man left behind” does not carry over from the military to State Department employees or retired S.E.A.L.’s.

Just thought I’d explain why some like me gave the only vote Mr. Obama is going to get from us 4 years ago.

Off to work to a job I hate. Yeah, I now work weekends. No future. Now hope to see if Romney will keep promises that Obama didn’t.

Posted by: George Washington Carver at November 3, 2012 6:30 AM
Comment #356322

Adrienne

The details of every storm are different. This one was an outlier,as were the series of storms I quoted during the time of Grover Cleveland.

I believe that the earth is warming and that human activities are contributing. But this weather event is not evidence of that, any more than the unusually calm hurricane seasons of the past few years or the cold winter of the year before last proves the contrary.

Re vertical farming - it is very cute. But think about that solution. If you grow food vertically, you will need to bring in artificial soils, fertilizers and even light. You would probably be growing most of the stuff hydroponically. This is a solution from desperation.

You are forgetting the inputs needed. You want to get rid of the fertilizers etc, but you need to use even more of them in vertical farming. Farming in any enclosed area is much more resource intensive.

Everything has to come from somewhere and go somewhere. In the environment, many things seems counter intuitive. When you actually try them out, they don’t work the way they would seem to. City kids come up with lots of ideas for farming. They sometimes work on small scales, but we need better solutions for larger problems.

One paradox. There was a thriving industry in cut flowers grown in Kenya and flown in jets to Europe. People decried the waste, but when they figured out the ecological footprint, they found that it used less energy and other inputs growing the flowers in Kenya than in greenhouses in Europe. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/14/kenya.conservationandendangeredspecies. Greenhouses, of which vertical farming would be a subspecies, is very energy and resource intensive.

Of course I know that liberals like you might tell the Europeans that they didn’t need the flowers at all. That is a different story, however.

Posted by: C&J at November 3, 2012 7:06 AM
Comment #356323

The yearly combined intensity level of storms the last century shows very little change. Sandy was just one of those really nasty ones that, fortunately, are not an every year occurrence.

Furthermore, without chemical fertilizers where would we be? How many of those kids in Africa would not have survived to adulthood without the massive U.S. grain output attributed to same?

Posted by: eyeswideopen at November 3, 2012 7:30 AM
Comment #356329

C&J-
There are changes occuring in the way our climate systems behave that are consistent with one theory, for which we have a lot of confirmation, and inconsistent with the notion that the status quo is in action. You can say natural variability is responsible, but how well supported is that theory?

People can offer whatever explanation they want to, but science demands that the implications of such theories be checked back against the results of observation and experiment.

GWC-
Look, a financial meltdown like this often knocks people down pretty far. So maybe the first job doesn’t earn as much, getting back, but maybe your next job pays better. If you really want better wages, don’t be so foolish as to hire Romney, because Romney’s theory is that everybody benefits when wages of people like you are kept to the bare minimum.

He quite plainly does not have your interests at heart, nor does he see the current economic downturn as a jobs problem. He sees it as a problem of his class of people not being able to do what they want, like they were doing before the meltdown that came of them doing what they want.

To them, your lower wages are a sensible resetting of the market. Why should they help you redress that? The only see one half of the market equation, and its not yours.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 3, 2012 9:05 AM
Comment #356330

Stephen

I believe in the theory. I have been talking about it since before you could read. I gave my first public presentation on the subject in 1985.

But I understand the science involved. This recent storm is not proof of the theory any more than the slow hurricane seasons of past years was proof against it.

I am also much better at knowing what to do. We Americans have reduced our CO2 emission remarkably within the last six years. We did better than any other country in the world. We did that largely by substituting natural gas for coal. You opposed this. People like you like to talk about global warming; people like me want to do something about it. This is generally how the liberal/conservative divide works. I suppose you guys should keep on talking; that’s what you are good at.

Posted by: C&J at November 3, 2012 9:11 AM
Comment #356331

BTW

Slideshow about hurricanes past - http://images.businessweek.com/slideshows/2012-10-29/sandy-and-100-years-of-hurricanes#slide17

Posted by: C&J at November 3, 2012 9:34 AM
Comment #356335

C&J-
I was reading about a year or two before then. Sorry.

The thing about this storm is that it’s not the only whacked out weather event. From thousands of record highs to extreme droughts, to ocean temperature warmth beyond what we’ve measured previously at this time of year, we’re seeing more than one roll of the dice telling us this pair of dice are loaded.

As for reducing carbon emissions, I wish your party was full of people like you, but unfortunately, it’s not, and you should face this fact. You should face the fact that they see the business interests of those whose fuels would increase carbon emissions as paramount, and are quite willing to undermine the competition so fossil fuel companies will have continued high profits.

As for wanting to do something about it? I’ve done quite a lot. I got a hybrid car, a monitor and a television that are high-efficiency LED models. Oh, by the way, I don’t oppose natural gas extraction. What I oppose is careless usage of hydraulic fracturing technology, failure to properly seal wells, or to check the kinds of chemicals we’re pumping into wells that might leak. It may be an added expense for fossil fuel companies, but a contaminated water source can be more economically problematic in the long term, especially after wells have run empty.

You talk a lot, and say, as and individual, I’m better than you at being green! But your party’s leadership is on record calling Global Warming a hoax, or worse, as one guy put it, lies from from the depths of hell.

You tell me, am I wrong? Is global warming really a problem according to those people, or do they simply consider it a socialist conspiracy to make researchers rich? (because we know there are so many scientific research billionaires out there, as opposed to the fossil fuel magnates like the Koch Brothers and Don Blankenship.)

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 3, 2012 9:47 AM
Comment #356336

Sorry, Mr. Daugherty. I don’t see it that way. I see Obama segregating classes,and playing one group against the other, not Mr. Romney. I listened to what lower and middle class people had to say about his personal help out of the limelight in times past, and feel tha tthis is the true measure of a man’s self.

I believe in the free enterprise business system. I worked my way up, with help, from nothing to something. Weak businesses fail, the strong survive. The weak should be allowed to fail. That’s the way it works.

I don’t feel sorry for myself because of my situation. I worked for a weak company and the Bush administration made it weaker. What I don’t like are the prospects ahead. There is no light at the end of the tunnel under the current administration. More spending will not do anything, but make it harder on my kids down the road - and this Bengazi deal is just another mark against them as far as I am concerned.

This is just my opinion. I seldom discuss it with others, but when I do, I find that many in our situation feel the same. I guess we will known Tuesday evening.

Posted by: George Washingon Carver at November 3, 2012 9:49 AM
Comment #356343

Stephen

The globe is going to get warmer. There is nothing we can do about it. We Americans are actually doing a great job of reducing emissions and I think that we will be doing even better. The problem is now the Chinese and others.

We need to adapt. Simple things like not building near vulnerable areas. We had this recent storm. Some of the lost property should not be rebuilt. People need to start moving uphill. We missed this opportunity in New Orleans and we we will miss it this time too because our political leadership will aid an abet folly. Think of the calls for Federal flood insurance. This is something we should never do.

The natural gas boom great. It is like a gift from God. We do need to be careful, but the evidence shows fracking is safer and more ecologically benign than alternatives.

We need to be ready for other alternatives. Biomass is good in some places. Solar or wind may be better in others.

I will say something re solar. Even is solar panels cost nothing, they will still be expensive to deploy because of labor to install and maintain. What if you had solar cells with a 20 year life that you installed on your roof last year on Staten Island?

Posted by: C&J at November 3, 2012 10:35 AM
Comment #356347

Really doesn’t matter if Romney wins. He was born in Mexico, not the U.S. He can release his birth certificate all he wants and it still won’t matter. He will be an illegitimate president.

Posted by: T at November 3, 2012 12:19 PM
Comment #356349
Re vertical farming - it is very cute. But think about that solution. If you grow food vertically, you will need to bring in artificial soils, fertilizers and even light. You would probably be growing most of the stuff hydroponically. This is a solution from desperation.

You are forgetting the inputs needed. You want to get rid of the fertilizers etc, but you need to use even more of them in vertical farming. Farming in any enclosed area is much more resource intensive.

Wrong. This kind of farming is already being done. And it’s already turning a profit.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 3, 2012 12:52 PM
Comment #356350
You talk a lot, and say, as and individual, I’m better than you at being green! But your party’s leadership is on record calling Global Warming a hoax, or worse, as one guy put it, lies from from the depths of hell.

Exactly. This is why the Republican Party is sure to increasingly become the the party of the antiquated past. They reject facts. They reject science. They reject smarter, better, cleaner, safer, and healthier solutions.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 3, 2012 1:09 PM
Comment #356351

George Washington Carver voted against his own self-interest.
It’s sad, but you can fix stupid.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 3, 2012 1:11 PM
Comment #356357

Adrienne

It depends on what you mean by profitable. Your company’s symbol is ASIUF. It has been in business since 2008 and suffered losses every year since. If you invested in this company in 2008, your shares would be worth about half as much as you paid.

A few figures

EBITDA (2.06 M)
Cash & Short-Term Investment 443,342
Total Debt 1.95 M
Total Liabilities 4.65 M
Total Shareholder’s Equity (3.31M)
Book Value Per Share (0.03)

They do, however, have a very colorful webpage, which I am sure appeals to the credulous much as shinny objects distract the gullible.

This is the kind of firm that only Obama would invest. It makes money only by getting people to kick in more cash. It has no net revenues. But after crunching the numbers you want to buy shares, you can get them for 8 1/2 cents each. By all means, call it profitable and bet the farm. That is the beauty of the free market; it lets each of us exercise his/her own judgement.

My definition of profit is that it makes more money than it costs, but then I am conservative.

Sorry to actually research your stuff and understand the numbers. I know that this is what you call … BS. But I enjoy this sort of thing. If you don’t believe me, feel free to research. I encourage you to invest. A woman has to do what she thinks best.

Vertical farming is for kids or for very specialized markets. There is no particular advantage to it. But as I said twice already, if you like this kind of thing, feel free to invest your own money.

RE voting against your own interests - many of us vote against our personal interest for what we think is the good of the country or the right thing to do. I know this perplexes liberals who even write books about it, but not everyone thinks like a liberal.

Posted by: C&J at November 3, 2012 2:13 PM
Comment #356358

I believe they call your statements an ad hominem attack, Adrienne. Thought I read you complaining about this type of thing a few days ago.
I simply disagree with you. I have given President Obama a chance. Now I’m going to give Romney his turn, I hope. I stated my reasons. I think they are sound ones based on my observations.


Posted by: George Washington Carver at November 3, 2012 2:24 PM
Comment #356360

Nice post, C&J. It’s hard to believe Adrienne has the gaul to call someone else stupid.

Posted by: John Johnson at November 3, 2012 2:28 PM
Comment #356362

John

I think you can call most people’s bluffs by asking them to take personal action. It is easy to talk about things being profitable or working well. But our lefty friends almost always want taxpayers or the rich to pick up the tab.

I have thought deeply about energy and environment and have indeed invested my money and time in lots of these things. I get a little annoyed at the kids who play with these thing. They screw things up and then we adults have to clean up after them.


There is a simple test of profit, however. It either makes money or not. Adrienne will not understand the numbers and the analysis. Her next move will be to link to another story where a partisan is talking up one of these investments. Maybe not now that I tipped her off.

I wish some of this stuff would indeed work. It would be nice. But at best they are money pits where idealist to assuage their guilt for not being poor.

I was in the carbon credit business before it went belly up. I was happy to take the money for people who wanted to fly guilt free, but there was no change on the ground, except that some people put up signs. We did sustainable forestry both before and after.

The inconvenient truth is that we already have a very adaptive system in place that is constantly seeking better alternatives. People can support what they thinks is good and what will work. Talk it cheap and few of our liberal contributors put their money or time where their mouths are.

Posted by: C&J at November 3, 2012 3:30 PM
Comment #356364

“It’d be nice if big oil would donate a few days of free gas to victims of this disaster who desperately need it.
I bet they won’t though.”

Hmmm…I wonder if obama and Christie have announced suspension of the gas tax yet. NO? Of course not!

How about suspension of sales tax in the states affected. NO? Of course not!

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 3, 2012 4:18 PM
Comment #356367

I find it interesting that despite C&J writing numerous times in numerous posts that…”We Americans are actually doing a great job of reducing emissions and I think that we will be doing even better.”; not a single leftie on WB has seen fit to find that commendable.

We have reached a goal that should call for celebration by every American. I too think we will do even better in controlling emissions in the future, and much of it will come from using more natural gas.

Our blessings of ample fossil fuel give us the opportunity to fuel our economic engines while searching for viable alternatives. We are on the cusp of a great American recovery and age of plenty for those who work and strive. What we need is competent government leadership to take advantage of our blessings.

There are two vastly different roads we can travel. One road rewards hard work and entrepreneurship, and the other punishes the successful and uses taxpayer money to force upon us central planning by government bureaucracy.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 3, 2012 4:51 PM
Comment #356384

Royal

They don’t appreciate it because it was not mandated by the government, rich people were not punished and nobody got revenge on us for our earlier ways.

It is also difficult for them to let go of America as oppressor. Others will soon bear most of the responsibility. China alone will emit more CO2 in 2020 than the whole world did in 1990.

I enjoy sticking it to them. Darn pessimists. I dislike downers.

Posted by: C&J at November 3, 2012 9:02 PM
Comment #356392

GWC-
The class is segregating itself. It’s manipulating the system to vastly increase its own earning power, and thereby putting itself in a situation where its far removed from the reality of everyday life. Romney’s 47% line was not a forced statement. I think its what he believes. I think he really doesn’t see the hard work others did, and just considers most of us a burden on him.

The upper classes have been taught to see themselves as victims of the system, to see their taxes as too high, their freedom to do as they please too constrained, and so on and so forth. That shifting these burdens away from them would be more destructive to society as a whole has become a thought they barely entertained.

People like us need to realize that this kind of elitism has been reborn, the kind we thought was relegated to the history books.

As for regulation of businesses, what defines weak and strong? What are the competitive forces really shaping? Are they shaping businesses that win because they successfully deceive and short-sheet their consumers? Are these companies winning because they’re willing and able to manipulate their accounting to look better than they are? Are they winning because they’ve latched on to some important part of society, like energy or real estate, and are exploiting it parasitically at great risk to the system as whole?

There are many ways for a company to become a winner, and many for it to become a loser. The question is, are we allowing the kinds of wins and defeats that are really healthy for the economy, or are we letting the system mutate into a mess of perverse incentives, lying and cheating, and socially destructive behavior?

Free enterprise is a vague cover for what’s really going on: rather than free business from government intervention, from picking winners and losers, business under the laissez faire system you’re fighting to protect are basically trying to rig in their advantages. Why do you think these people pay so much for political advertising and lobbying, for campaign contributions and everything? The idealization you’re given is just to short circuit the sense of outrage you would have, if you really realized what was happening. That free market economy is just an illusion. No system works perfectly as it does in a textbook.

John Johnson-
She has an ancient French barbarian to call somebody stupid? (Tip on calling somebody stupid: do spellcheck your comment first.)

Royal Flush-
Can the President suspend the federal gas tax for a selected state, or would that be unconstitutional? Would it take an Act of Congress to do so?

As for emissions, there’s no doubt that’s a good thing. But, and this constitutes my response to C&J on the matter, there’s more we can do, and more we should do.

The models for Global Warming predict different outcomes based on where the CO2 concentration rises to. While C&J are pessimistic as to what can be done, they’re already noting an improvement on greenhouse emissions, thanks to the reduction of coal, which gives off more carbon emission when it burns than oil or natural gas.

If we can reduce our emissions enough, though we don’t dodge all the warming, we can avoid a rather more intense warming scenario, with all the consequences thereof.

Mayor Bloomberg talked about risk management and scientific evidence, and I would say, that’s much a part of the argument we’ve got here. We have most scientists who know the subject by a huge margin in consensus that this is happening, and our emissions are driving the change.

We are seeing an example of what happens when changes in the temperature of water here and in the Caribbean conspire to make more powerful storms. You might not get as many, as hurricanes have a tendency to leave tracks of colder water in their wake, but you get more powerful storms, because the dynamic between heat and cold that drives storms is that much stronger.

It’s better to think in terms of energy, than just numbers on a thermometer. We are creating a system that takes on more moisture before it lets it go, where storms grow stronger, faster, before they hit us, and we are also shifting the patterns of how the atmosphere processes that energy. Our planet’s weather is a heat engine, but one that’s more complex than what we have under the hood, and we are not only increasing the risks of certain kind of weather disasters, we are also increasing the volatility of the system, and that system’s capacity to surprise us with unusual weather behavior.

So, we’re shooting ourselves in the foot, putting more of our cities and communities at risk. We’re guaranteeing ourselves a future where our food and water will cost more or be more difficult to secure. We’re trashing our house for a party, and kidding ourselves that we won’t have to wake up among the beercans and barf-puddles.

We need to stop being such fools. We need to treat this as a real threat, or otherwise it will eventually become too economically expensive to continue living our way of life.

As for pessimism? I don’t think a pessimist would say that we are capable of making these changes, and in fact living better, healthier lives for it. I don’t think a pessimist would say that even China will have to face the consequences of its dependence on oil, and that America can be enough of a good example to shame China into acting.

So on and so forth. You seem to be the pessimist, because you cast doubt on anything that can be done to mitigate the problem. It’s all inevitable. No, it’s not. Some of it is already in there, and could have been prevented if we had acted earlier. But not all of it is yet set in stone. We will have to deal with a warmer earth, but how warm is up to us.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 4, 2012 8:49 AM
Comment #356394

RF,

“I find it interesting that despite C&J writing numerous times in numerous posts that…”We Americans are actually doing a great job of reducing emissions and I think that we will be doing even better.”; not a single leftie on WB has seen fit to find that commendable.”

I don’t know… maybe it’s just me, but should we be breaking our arms, patting ourselves on the back, for doing something we should have been doing in the first place?
I don’t mean to be a “downer”, but just how long did it take us to realize that if you put it in your mouth, and it kills you, you probably shouldn’t just dump it on the ground.

Jack,

China is using coal to fuel it’s industrial revolution, just as we did. The difference is that they have used coal for everything.
We ended up regulating coal emissions, perhaps they will soon get it as well.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 4, 2012 9:10 AM
Comment #356397

Royal: “…not a single leftie on WB has seen fit to find that commendable.”

I like that the right is strutting around on this subject like it took steps to reduce carbon better than liberals instead of the reality which is carbon is reduced now simply because a cleaner form of energy is profitable today. You’re the Forest Gump of carbon reduction. Good work, I guess?

The trouble is the right doesn’t give a damn about carbon and we all know it. Very few of you will even admit it’s a problem. Most of you think it’s a liberal scam. What happens if the next energy boom comes along that is dirty again ten years from now? The point of taking measured steps to reduce carbon is it helps us acknowledge as a nation and to the world that carbon is a problem.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 4, 2012 10:30 AM
Comment #356399
It depends on what you mean by profitable.

It does indeed depend — on understanding what I wrote. I said this kind of farming is being done, and it is already turning a profit. And it is. Farmers who have been using that system to grow crops ARE turning a serious profit on their investment. How do I know this? Because I have a couple of friends in the Bay Area who have been using that system for several years now. They were able to pay it off quickly, and are now making amazing profits growing organic crops that they sell to restaurants with green certification. It’s a highly efficient system, that gives enormous yields in very little space, using very little soil and water, and absolutely no herbicides, pesticides or fungicides.
You can mock that company for not doing well enough to make enormous profits at the moment, but it’s a fact that they’ve designed a vertical farming system that works incredibly well. And as we confront global climate change, it’s important to understand that there are people who have already worked out brilliant solutions to what is highly likely become a growing crisis in the coming years ahead.

You wrote:
“If you grow food vertically, you will need to bring in artificial soils, fertilizers and even light. You would probably be growing most of the stuff hydroponically. This is a solution from desperation.

You are forgetting the inputs needed. You want to get rid of the fertilizers etc, but you need to use even more of them in vertical farming. Farming in any enclosed area is much more resource intensive.”

It’s important for people to understand that every single one of these claims are entirely FALSE ones.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 4, 2012 11:14 AM
Comment #356400

Rocky:

I don’t know… maybe it’s just me, but should we be breaking our arms, patting ourselves on the back, for doing something we should have been doing in the first place? I don’t mean to be a “downer”, but just how long did it take us to realize that if you put it in your mouth, and it kills you, you probably shouldn’t just dump it on the ground.

Well said, Rocky!

Adam:

The trouble is the right doesn’t give a damn about carbon and we all know it. Very few of you will even admit it’s a problem. Most of you think it’s a liberal scam. What happens if the next energy boom comes along that is dirty again ten years from now? The point of taking measured steps to reduce carbon is it helps us acknowledge as a nation and to the world that carbon is a problem.

Exactly. Conservatives don’t even want to acknowledge the problems! Their rejection of facts and science is absurd — and it endangers all of us.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 4, 2012 11:25 AM
Comment #356404

Adrienne

I don’t know what to tell you except that if you believe so strongly in vertical farming you not only have an opportunity but a moral duty to invest your own money in the firms are developing it. If it works, we will all thank you and you will prosper.

When I have studied such things, however, I have found that the inputs required are greater than the benefits created. Lots of things sound very good when pitched by their proponents.

So you seem certain that my experience is wrong and that my conclusions are false. You even used capital letters. This one is very easy. If you believe what you write, you have the moral duty to invest your money. Go for it.

I am not always right. The future is unknowable. We need to try lots of different things. This is why I am such a firm supporter of market mechanism. I invested in cellulose ethanol because I thought it was a fuel of the future. I was mistaken. That lesson cost me $5000+ and could have been worse. On the other hand, I had little confidence in biomass, but a couple months ago Dominion Power announced that it will use wood chips in plants near my land. In other words, I lost money on what I thought was good and will make it on what I thought was a mistake. So you go for it if you think you are right.

You may “go to class” at the same place I did. Maybe you will do better. Good luck with that.

Posted by: C&J at November 4, 2012 12:46 PM
Comment #356411

SD writes; “Royal Flush-
Can the President suspend the federal gas tax for a selected state, or would that be unconstitutional? Would it take an Act of Congress to do so?”

I can think of a few things that obama has already done that are unconstitutional. You are merely picking and choosing. If I were president, I would do it. Presidents pick and choose which states, and how much each state, receives in federal disaster aid.

I believe both the left and right want to reform government to make it more effective and cost efficient. Under obama we have not seen government reformation, merely government enhancement and growth. Given another term we will see even more government growth and just lip service paid to reforming it.

Adrienne writes; “You can mock that company for not doing well enough to make enormous profits at the moment, but it’s a fact that they’ve designed a vertical farming system that works incredibly well.”

If that is the case it should soon be replicated and thrive in our free market system. I just don’t want huge government subsidies going into it. If as you write it is competitive, there should be no need for government investment.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 4, 2012 3:11 PM
Comment #356416

Royal

That is the beauty of the free market. People like Adrienne can invest their time and money in things they believe in while you and I don’t have to pay for it. But they don’t see it that way. They want our money invested in these money losers. In fact, I think that liberals only like firms that lose money. Of course, they put in none of their own.

The great Ronald Reagan summed up the liberal point of view when he said, “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

The problem I have with many of our liberal friends when it comes to issues of energy and environment is that they just won’t think for themselves. This vertical farming is a good example. If they would just think for themselves they would have to understand that a vertical farm would require people bringing in all the inputs: soil, water, fertilizer, etc. These things that nature provides at least in part to horizontal farms. In addition, they would have to artificially remove wastes, compost artificially etc.

It is no surprise the vertical farmers lose money. The only place you might want to do something like this would be when you were very desperate, living on a island or flying through space.

But they have a nice webpage.

Posted by: C&J at November 4, 2012 4:04 PM
Comment #356426

Jack, you must be mistaking me for someone who can afford to gamble. I can’t do that.

Reading the your and RF’s comments did make me chuckle though. Sometimes reading rightwing BS hits my funny bone!

Posted by: Adrienne at November 4, 2012 8:14 PM
Comment #356429

Adrienne

You are not gambling. Evidently you think it is nearly a sure thing.

This is one of the big differences between us right wing and you left wing types. We take responsibility for our ideas and preferences.

It is very easy to advocate investments when you don’t plan to put anything on the line. My analysis is that the firm you mention will never make money because it will never be able to provide food to large numbers of people at prices they can afford to pay. This doesn’t matter to you, since you “can’t afford to gamble” and despite your rhetoric do not have enough confidence in what you are saying.

BTW - you can buy shares in ASIUF for $0.085 a share. If you just give up a cup of coffee each day, you could afford to buy lots of shares after a few months. When this investment pays off big, you can be living large, give to the poor, whatever you like.

I always get a chuckle on how liberals talk so big but commit so little of their own resources. You tell me that I don’t understand the investment. You tell me that you believe in this and that it will help feed the world. You imply that it is a sure thing. Yet you won’t put a penny of your own money into this wonderful thing.

I like to watch what people really do rather than what they say. People tell the truth by their actions, not by their words.

Posted by: C&J at November 4, 2012 8:37 PM
Comment #356436

Royal Flush-
I see. Thanks for not answering the question. It would be nice, though, to find out whether President Obama legally could do something by executive order, before we start criticizing him for not doing it.

C&J-
The mythology of your party hides a litany of tax breaks, subsidies, and other government action. Rather than hold government neutral, as you idealize it, things like fossil fuel exploration get tax breaks and subsidies. So we’re not dealing with the meritocracy you describe, such that it would be unfair to offer renewable energy systems and other green projects help. This is more a difference of opinion of what the government’s priorities should be, if we’re looking at things on the merits.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 4, 2012 10:02 PM
Comment #356438

Jack,

It is a good investment for organic farmers because obviously it’s a system that works. The proof of that is that my friends are making a very good profit with their organic farming business. Let me repeat that since you seem too dense to understand: My friends have been making a very hefty profit ever since they switched from regular organic farming to that particular vertical farming system. In fact, they’ve been banking enough that they are now thinking of expanding the entire business.

Is the company who makes that system a well-run business? I don’t know. Hopefully it is, since they obviously have a well-designed that is working for the people who use it. But the fact is, designing a good product and running a business efficiently and successfully can be two totally distinct and separate endeavors.

If had money to gamble with, maybe I’d be willing to take a chance on that company after researching them a bit. But the fact is, I do not have money I can afford to lose on that type of gamble. And I never have.

I always get a chuckle on how liberals talk so big but commit so little of their own resources.

Yeah, go ahead and look down your nose and laugh at how much less other people have than you do. I’m sure all the William F. Buckley & Mitt Romney types that make up the Republican Party would be so amused.

Meanwhile, I think it’s hilarious how you sound just as out of touch as Moneybags Mitt did when he told that story about how “poor” he and Ann were during his college days, because they had to sell some stock and were forced to eat tuna fish and other lowly foodstuffs — even though neither one of them had to work a single day during any of those years.
Or when Mitt told those students in Ohio that if they wanted to start a business all they had to do was just borrow money from their parents.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 4, 2012 10:11 PM
Comment #356441

Adrienne, I believe you now reside in far left leaning, bankrupt California. I can understand your being there. You fit in so well. “Pay me more than I give you back in effort and production.” “Let’s fund companies that are destined for failure.” “Let’s start a new way of growing food which will jack up prices a little more because we have money to burn.” “Sure we can get enough sunlight into those vertical rows.” “Yes, we can teach corn and wheat to support itself by ignoring gravity.” We have to do something because today’s conventionally fertilized foods are killing us by the millions, and the average lifespan is dropping like a rock.”

Posted by: John Johnson at November 4, 2012 10:59 PM
Comment #356443

Oh well look who spewed another load of crap — it’s WB’s resident spittle-flecked troll, Frank Johnson!

Posted by: Adrienne at November 4, 2012 11:08 PM
Comment #356444

John Johnson-
Well, one reason why the state is having constant money trouble is how difficult it is to actually increase revenue rates to suit what they’re spending.

Conservatives these days buy into a very one-sided idea of fiscal matters, when the truth is, it is and always has been an equation with two sides. How you adjust both sides, and how the feedbacks in the economy adjust what can be spent, or what can be cut.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 4, 2012 11:24 PM
Comment #356445

I love your retorts, Adrienne. I garner great pleasure out of telling someone who doesn’t have a clue that they don’t have a clue. Your weak personal response is telling. I would have thought you would at least share with all of us how to replace millions of acres of conventionally planted, vertically growing corn and wheat with some on high rise erector sets growing horizontally.

And Stephen…cut the gibberish, please.

Posted by: John Johnson at November 5, 2012 12:41 AM
Comment #356450

Daugherty:

What are you trying to say? The obvious? I have to balance my checkbook and you do, too. So does California; so does the U.S. Are you saying that conservatives spend more than liberals? Not so.

CA green initiatives cost them billlions. Outrageously attractive benefits paid to state employees cost them billions. Not allowing offshore drilling costs them billions. Free giveaways to illegals costs them billions. They have had to make drastic cuts in spending to keep from going under. The Federal government needs to do the same, but Obama just keeps borrowing and giving it away.

Adrienne wants to push for changes that sound good, but will never work until the product they produce can be offered at a price equal to or less than what they want to replace. Walmart pushed “Made in U.S.A.” products until they figured out that people were buying the cheaper Chinese version offered somewhere else instead. All things being equal, the American consumer goes for less expensive, so your pie-in-the-sky idea is doomed for failure until you can offer a head of lettuce at a competitive price.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 5, 2012 8:17 AM
Comment #356486

Adreinne

Organic farming and vertical farming are not the same. You can farm vertically organically, although with great difficulty because of the weight of the inputs, or not. It is not a requirement either way.

There are organic farmers who make profits. Their productivity is lower per unit of labor but they can command a premium on sales. Good.

“Yeah, go ahead and look down your nose and laugh at how much less other people have than you do.” I am not looking down on you for having less; I am looking down on your lesser commitment.

People are rarely so poor that they cannot do something to better their condition.

I know you may find it frustrating to talk to me, but I have a similar problem with you. You seem to have absolutely not experience with much of anything practical. When I talk to you about inputs into agriculture, you have no idea what I am talking about. Cannot you understand the simple concept that soil, water etc have to come from somewhere and since they do not occur naturally on man made tall buildings, you would have to bring them in and keep them replenished? If you look at the sun, the sun generally is overhead at a southern direction. A particular piece of land can attract only so much sunlight. In summer time, the sun would not shine very far into any building. Think of your own house.

There is a reason why the firm you mention doesn’t make money. And, despite your protestations, even you are too smart to put your own money into it.

Posted by: C&J at November 5, 2012 4:30 PM
Comment #356530

http://www.coach.com[url=http://www.coach.com/]coach[/url]
[url=http://www.coach.com/]coach outlet[/url]
[url=http://www.coach.com/]coach factory[/url]coach
coach outlet
coach factorycoach
coach outlet
coach factory

Posted by: coach1 at November 5, 2012 10:13 PM
Comment #356569


coach outlet online These products happen to be shown to improve the likelihood that you will develop lung, bladder, cervical, oral, and pancreatic at the same time as kidney coach handbag outlet..
coach outlet online Avoiding them will not only assist decrease your threat of coach factory outlet locations, it will enable you to lead a healthier way of life all round..
coach outlet Lung coach factory store lacator is among the most deadly cancers..
coach outlet It truly is extremely tough to treat, but scientists have found that diet regime may possibly play a significant role in lowering the incidence of this sort of coach handbag outlet..
coach factory outlet A diet program low in fat and higher in fruits, tomatoes and green vegetables all can minimize the danger..
coach outlet online In fact, research show that apples can minimize the threat of lung coach shoes outlet by as much as 50 per cent!.
coach factory outlet online If chemotherapy is a part of your coach outlets online treatment, be sure to monitor your temperature often..
coach factory Beginning about a week following your therapy, you have a higher likelihood of getting a bacterial infection..
coach purses outlet Should you notice that you just possess a temperature spike, go to your physician proper away to prevent a critical complication..
coach outlet online In the event you have hiccups out of your chemotherapy treatment, talk with your doctor before trying any residence remedies..

Posted by: coach1 at November 6, 2012 3:05 AM
Comment #378777

Great blog and I love what you have to say and I think I will tweet this out to my friends so they can check it out as well. I like what you have to say Pollen and Bleu | Pollen & Bleu | Rivertrees Residences | Rivertrees | coco palms pasir ris | coco palms | coco palms condo | the rise @ oxley | the rise @ oxley residences | rise @ oxley | handbags | handbags Singapore | ladies bags excellent article.

Posted by: the rise @ oxley residences at May 25, 2014 12:47 AM
Post a comment