Is Obama in for 2012?

[ProfJohn]

I voted yes because:

1. The economy and unemployment will have turned around by 2012. Those will be the main drivers in the election. Counter what his critics have said, Mr Obama has won every important political battle he has chosen. Considering the state of the economy, and actually the country, he inherited, any non partisan evaluation of his performance so far would have to give him at least a B on a scale of A to E. I give him an A- because the US and the world in not in a 1930's type Depression, the US is not in another war, he has plans to get out of the GWB wars.

I don't think you are paying enough attention to the effect Obama's policies will have on the economy.

The healthcare bill is a job killer due to its taxes and the requirement of companies to provide healthcare. That requirement will result in companies hiring less people in order to save money.

Next up is cap & trade which is another job killer.

And of course our run away debt will have a huge impact on the economy too as interest rates go up and our governments borrowing makes it harder to companies to borrow money themselves.

What is Obama doing to counter all these problems?? Nothing other than holding a few summits.

 

[feralkid]

I think the obstructionism only bothers liberals at this point. Mainstream America is fine with a gridlocked DC. When DC gets going on something it is mainstream America who takes it in the shorts.

That said I never understood why Republican obstructionism equals democrat benefit while Democrat obstructionism equals democrat benefit. Seems unlikely democrats can never lose in this scenario.

Not even close.

 

[Siddhartha]

I think the obstructionism only bothers liberals at this point. Mainstream America is fine with a gridlocked DC. When DC gets going on something it is mainstream America who takes it in the shorts.

That said I never understood why Republican obstructionism equals democrat benefit while Democrat obstructionism equals democrat benefit. Seems unlikely democrats can never lose in this scenario.

I was referring to possible criticism of Mr Obama as being do nothing. One GOP Congressman held up the approval of an extension of unemployment benefits. Is that example where "mainstream American" taking it in the shorts? How about the Jobs Bill it that another example of where "mainstream American" taking it in the shorts?

 

[zsdersw]

The Tea Party protest started in 2009 with Bush, protesting TARP, and the Stimulus, and grew from groups that were already pissed about war spending but I wouldn't expect a couple partisan hacks to realize that.

It had (and has) nothing to do with war spending.

Where were they when the Iraq war began?

Where were they when the Medicare prescription drug benefit was passed?

 

[Siddhartha]

The Tea Party protest started in 2009 with Bush, protesting TARP, and the Stimulus, and grew from groups that were already pissed about war spending but I wouldn't expect a couple partisan hacks to realize that.

The only person I have heard point out that TARP started out under Mr Bush has been Mr Obama. But where were the Tea Partiers when the Bush tax cuts were voted in? Where were they when the GWB wars were funded with deficits?

 

[xj0hnx]

The only person I have heard point out that TARP started out under Mr Bush has been Mr Obama. But where were the Tea Partiers when the Bush tax cuts were voted in? Where were they when the GWB wars were funded with deficits?

I hate to break it to you, but there were a lot of people pissed off about Bush's spending. I know you wish all the protest started with Obama so you could wrap it in your pretty partisan package, but the truth doesn't fit your illusion.

 

[zsdersw]

I hate to break it to you, but there were a lot of people pissed off about Bush's spending. I know you wish all the protest started with Obama so you could wrap it in your pretty partisan package, but the truth doesn't fit your illusion.

Not on here there weren't. I just did an advanced search for bush spending in the P&N section, and the oldest thread goes back to January 2009; reflecting nothing of Bush's presidency.

Many "conservative" or "Republican" posters here have been members of these forums for a lot longer than that.. and haven't apparently made any threads critical of Bush.

If there's an archive, perhaps a mod or admin can search it?

 

[nick1985]

Not on here there weren't. I just did an advanced search for bush spending in the P&N section, and the oldest thread goes back to January 2009; reflecting nothing of Bush's presidency.

Many "conservative" or "Republican" posters here have been members of these forums for a lot longer than that.. and haven't apparently made any threads critical of Bush.

If there's an archive, perhaps a mod or admin can search it?

Spending under Bush WAS out of control. That doesn't somehow justify even more insane spending under Obama. Or does it?

 

[Genx87]

I was referring to possible criticism of Mr Obama as being do nothing. One GOP Congressman held up the approval of an extension of unemployment benefits. Is that example where "mainstream American" taking it in the shorts? How about the Jobs Bill it that another example of where "mainstream American" taking it in the shorts?

What is wrong with being a do nothing president? We are working on our second do something president and look where it is getting us.

 

[dullard]

Many people I know say Obama has over-promised and under-delivered as far as campaign pledges go. Obama's foreign policy isn't bearing fruits, the status of the economy is nowhere near the predictions made in 2009, and the latest HC reform package is not even close to what was promised.

Lets start with your assumptions quoted above.

Frist, did he over-promise and under-deliver? You said he did, but didn't provide any facts. Here is a list of all his campaign promisses and whether he has met them or missed them. So far, he kept 21.5% of his promisses. But he is 30% of his way through his first term. If he keeps up that pace, he'll have met 70% of his promisses. That 70% number is pretty typical for all presidents. Is it perfect? No. But it isn't bad either.

Second, what economic predictions were you refering to in 2009? If you have specific ones, bring them up so we can see that you are correct. If not, I'll have to refer to the famous unemployment predictions made in 2008 (well before the extent of the recession was known). That infamous prediction was this: unemployment with the stimulus would rise 3% higher than it was at the time, unemployment would peak in the second quarter of 2010, and won't return to 5% until 2013/2014. What really happened? When the stimulus package was passed (roughly a year after the prediction), the unemployement went up 1.9% more, peaked in Oct 2009, and we don't yet know when it'll hit 5%. So the stimulus package was better than predicted on the only two data points we have. We won't know the 2013/2014 data until, well, 2013/2014 hits.

Finally, what specifically was different in the HC reform compared to what was promissed. A few minor things have not passed, and the only major things that didn't pass were imported drugs and a public health care option. Is there anything in particular that you thing was "not even close to what was promissed"?

 

[zsdersw]

Spending under Bush WAS out of control. That doesn't somehow justify even more insane spending under Obama. Or does it?

I'm not talking about or justifying Obama's spending, I'm pointing out how muted or non-existent criticism of Bush's spending was (and remains).

 

[nick1985]

I'm not talking about or justifying Obama's spending, I'm pointing out how muted or non-existent criticism of Bush's spending was (and remains).

Ah ok. So we can both agree that the current spending is insane and unsustainable?

 

[zsdersw]

Ah ok. So we can both agree that the current spending is insane and unsustainable?

Yup, though Obama hasn't said the current spending is sustainable. He said it is unsustainable.

 

[nick1985]

Yup, though Obama hasn't said the current spending is sustainable. He said it is unsustainable.

That makes it worse. I'd rather someone just be ignorant and spending the nation into oblivion than knowingly doing so.

 

[zsdersw]

That makes it worse. I'd rather someone just be ignorant and spending the nation into oblivion than knowingly doing so.

Objectively, no, it doesn't make it any worse. Crashing a car is crashing a car, whether you know you're doing it or by accident; the car is just as wrecked.

 

[xj0hnx]

Not on here there weren't. I just did an advanced search for bush spending in the P&N section, and the oldest thread goes back to January 2009; reflecting nothing of Bush's presidency.

Many "conservative" or "Republican" posters here have been members of these forums for a lot longer than that.. and haven't apparently made any threads critical of Bush.

If there's an archive, perhaps a mod or admin can search it?

Bush spending going back to 08

http://forums.anandtech.com/search.php?searchid=214615&pp=25&page=20

Bush spending stimulus going back to '03

http://forums.anandtech.com/search.php?searchid=214648&pp=25

I'm not talking about or justifying Obama's spending, I'm pointing out how muted or non-existent criticism of Bush's spending was (and remains).

Anandtech isn't the center of the political universe? You'd have to be willfully ignorant to claim that there's no criticism of Bush's spending.

Objectively, no, it doesn't make it any worse. Crashing a car is crashing a car, whether you know you're doing it or by accident; the car is just as wrecked.

LOL, so if the economy is wrecked is doesn't matter if the president did it on purpose, or if he was negligent? Would you give Bush the same consideration?

 

[zsdersw]

Bush spending going back to 08

http://forums.anandtech.com/search.php?searchid=214615&pp=25&page=20

Bush spending stimulus going back to '03

http://forums.anandtech.com/search.php?searchid=214648&pp=25

Those links don't work.

Anandtech isn't the center of the political universe? You'd have to be willfully ignorant to claim that there's no criticism of Bush's spending.

Of course it isn't. I was talking about on here. Show me a Tea Party rally from those times, though.

LOL, so if the economy is wrecked is doesn't matter if the president did it on purpose, or if he was negligent? Would you give Bush the same consideration?

It's not really "on purpose", because no president actually intends on wrecking the economy. Every president wants to improve the economy, it's just a matter of whether their chosen methods for doing so are destined for success or failure.

 

[Carmen813]

Depends on who he runs against. Right now the only one I think who stands a chance at beating him is Romney.

 

[Anarchist420]

I'm sure he won't be--not even starting war with Iran is going to get him re-elected.

Economies can't recover through deficit spending, in fact they only get worse, and I'll be glad to see his sorry ass concede to Dr. Paul in November 2012.

 

[Anarchist420]

Depends on who he runs against. Right now the only one I think who stands a chance at beating him is Romney.

Romney won't do anything different, so you could be right. I hope not, but people like more of the same, so I could be fucked.

 

[heyheybooboo]

That makes it worse. I'd rather someone just be ignorant and spending the nation into oblivion than knowingly doing so.

Objectively, no, it doesn't make it any worse. Crashing a car is crashing a car, whether you know you're doing it or by accident; the car is just as wrecked.

'Theoretically' the budget deficit can be reduced 50% as a percentage of GDP (to around 4.2%) in the next 4 years, dependent upon:

1) A rebound in the Economy;
2) We 'unwind' in Iraq and Afghanistan;
3) A reinstatement of the 'upper income' tax provisions; and
4) Discretionary spending (Defense and general gov't) is effectively 'rolled' back 30% (to around 7% of GDP).

This seems to be the 'plan'. Beyond 2014, Discretionary spending is cut another 10%. The objective appears to be to cover the increased expense in the net interest by reducing Discretionary spending. It looks something like this:

Discretionary Spending

FY2010 . . . . . $1.394 trillion
FY2019 . . . . . $1.096 trillion


Net Interest Expense

FY2011 . . . . . $248 billion
FY2019 . . . . . $517 billion


Federal debt continues to rise because:

1) We will continue to borrow from the trust funds; and
2) We will pay around $2 trillion in interest to ourselves from the monies we have already borrowed from the trust funds (last time I checked we 'owed' ourselves around $4.5 trillion).





Hack away, boys and girls ---- LOL

I'm sure he won't be--not even starting war with Iran is going to get him re-elected.

Economies can't recover through deficit spending, in fact they only get worse, and I'll be glad to see his sorry ass concede to Dr. Paul in November 2012.

Between you and Johnnie, it's a race to the bottom on who is the bigger hack. Keep trying (and Failing).





--

 

[xj0hnx]

Those links don't work.

Search: Keyword(s): bush, spending, stimulus Thread / Thread Starter Last Post Replies Views Forum

Very good article on the Bush Tax Plan
jjsole

01-28-2003 05:38 AM
by Tominator ​

36 37 Off Topic

Democrats steal Bush's idea - $300 tax rebate
tcsenter

02-14-2003 03:48 PM
by chowderhead ​

45 46 Off Topic

The Prez.'s Economic Speech....(

1 2 3 ... Last Page)
AlienCraft

01-08-2003 10:26 PM
by Michael ​

They work for me

Of course it isn't. I was talking about on here. Show me a Tea Party rally from those times, though.

You said

"But where were the Tea Partiers when the Bush tax cuts were voted in? Where were they when the GWB wars were funded with deficits?"

The fact is that conservatives have been critical of Bush for a long time. Conservative doesn't equal chickenhawk neocon.

It's not really "on purpose", because no president actually intends on wrecking the economy. Every president wants to improve the economy, it's just a matter of whether their chosen methods for doing so are destined for success or failure.

That's not what I asked, I asked if you would have given Bush the same "objective" view that you give to "a wrecked car is still wrecked".

 

[zsdersw]

Search: Keyword(s): bush, spending, stimulus Thread / Thread Starter Last Post Replies Views Forum

Very good article on the Bush Tax Plan
jjsole

01-28-2003 05:38 AM
by Tominator ​

36 37 Off Topic

Democrats steal Bush's idea - $300 tax rebate
tcsenter

02-14-2003 03:48 PM
by chowderhead ​

45 46 Off Topic

The Prez.'s Economic Speech....(

1 2 3 ... Last Page)
AlienCraft

01-08-2003 10:26 PM
by Michael ​

They work for me

Yup, that sure equals or even compares to the criticisms of Obama now, doesn't it?

You said

"But where were the Tea Partiers when the Bush tax cuts were voted in? Where were they when the GWB wars were funded with deficits?"

Actually, no, I didn't say that.

The fact is that conservatives have been critical of Bush for a long time. Conservative doesn't equal chickenhawk neocon.

Not nearly as vocal about Bush's spending as they've been about Obama's.

That's not what I asked, I asked if you would have given Bush the same "objective" view that you give to "a wrecked car is still wrecked".

Yeah, I would. Whether one president tries to fix the economy one way and fails, or if another president tries to fix the economy another way and fails, the failure remains.

 

[StageLeft]

Too early to tell. I think the country deserves better than him but who knows what buffoon the Repubs will pull out of their ass to run. Wonders never cease, proved by Palin's VP role, so it really is impossible to meaningfully project at this point. Jan of 2012 it should be possible to have a decent idea but you can't really start committing to a projection until the summer because don't forget any candidate is always just one big (or more often tiny) scandal away from being laughed out of the running.

 

[FoBoT]

he has a choice to make after the 2010 elections, go center like bill clinton and win a 2nd term or 'stick to his <whatever>' and be a one termer like jimmy carter

but of course "it is the economy stupid" applies, if unemployment is still > ~9&#37; , he'll have a tough time regardless. if the public perception is that the economy is 'good' , then that helps him alot