obummer hits a dubious milestone

[badb0y]

Ron Paul seems to be the voice of reason in the Republican Party...

 

[nonlnear]

badb0y is right. Obama is bad, the alternatives are worse.

That's scary. I'm resolved to vote for the worst candidate. It's sobering to think that it might not be Obama, but it's looking that way...

 

[Ausm]

Wiki is a horrible source for stuff about the debt and budget, except for actual dollar figures.

There is an insane amount of bias in such articles. Just read the discussion part to see what I mean.

Just look at any thread we have about the budget. You have eight different opinions from eight different people and everyone is correct.

From another thread. An honest attempt to determine how much of Obama's debt spending is due to his extra spending.

Typical Republican answer...but if you look at the foot notes all these figures are backed by reputable links.

I am wondering if your in the same camp of people that don't believe President Obama was born in the U.S even tho there is empirical evidence on the contrary?

 

[fskimospy]

Typical Republican answer...but if you look at the foot notes all these figures are backed by reputable links.

I am wondering if your in the same camp of people that don't believe President Obama was born in the U.S even tho there is empirical evidence on the contrary?

Amazing intellectual gymnastics to avoid confronting uncomfortable truths. Pro-Jo has already set in his mind that Obama is some sort of super spending ultra liberal. There's really nothing you can do that will shake his belief in this. Contrary information is either wrong, or part of the conspiracy.

You'll notice that he offered exactly ZERO evidence as to what programs accounted for this huge disparity outside the stimulus. (and he even got that wrong, as half of it was tax cuts and not new spending) He simply stated his fact free belief and then discounts all evidence that runs contrary to it.

 

[Wreckem]

Peak spending under Reagan was 23.5% of GDP with a 6% deficit.

Obama is sitting at 25+% of GDP with a 10% deficit.

Does that include two wars, started by someone else?

 

[Ausm]

Amazing intellectual gymnastics to avoid confronting uncomfortable truths. Pro-Jo has already set in his mind that Obama is some sort of super spending ultra liberal. There's really nothing you can do that will shake his belief in this. Contrary information is either wrong, or part of the conspiracy.

You'll notice that he offered exactly ZERO evidence as to what programs accounted for this huge disparity outside the stimulus. (and he even got that wrong, as half of it was tax cuts and not new spending) He simply stated his fact free belief and then discounts all evidence that runs contrary to it.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[PokerGuy]

Fact 1: annual deficit is at a record high, 1.6 trillion. Fact 2: obummer is the president.

You can't escape the fact that this president presides and will preside over the largest deficits in the history of the world. Contort and deflect all you want ("show me what exactly he did!"), it's irrelevant drivel in light of the incontrovertible facts in evidence.

 

[fskimospy]

Fact 1: annual deficit is at a record high, 1.6 trillion. Fact 2: obummer is the president.

You can't escape the fact that this president presides and will preside over the largest deficits in the history of the world. Contort and deflect all you want ("show me what exactly he did!"), it's irrelevant drivel in light of the incontrovertible facts in evidence.

Hahaha. I like how asking for someone to support their position is now 'contorting and deflecting'.

What's even more amazing is that there are apparently incontrovertible facts in evidence to support it, they just are Voldemort facts so they can't be named.

 

[woolfe9999]

Fact 1: annual deficit is at a record high, 1.6 trillion. Fact 2: obummer is the president.

You can't escape the fact that this president presides and will preside over the largest deficits in the history of the world. Contort and deflect all you want ("show me what exactly he did!"), it's irrelevant drivel in light of the incontrovertible facts in evidence.

Correlation /= causation. Deficit increase caused by a shrinking tax base and increases in mandatory spending - both triggered by a pre-existing recession - are not caused by whoever happens to be in power at the time. But you're right in a political sense. Most people are too stupid to understand the issue beyond the manner in which you presented it.

 

[Pens1566]

Are actual costs of the wars now in the official "budgets" and not hidden away in supplemental spending?

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Reagan, a real leader, inherited a mess from Carter, and had to do it with a house and senate that were both controlled by dimlibs. He still managed to get the things through that needed to be done, and started a 30 year growth period.

Now we have "but but but booooooosh, I can't do anything because of the gop... waaaaaaah!"

Fueled by deficits.

You can't escape that reality PokerGuy. That was the so called "miracle". Deficit fueled growth.

Remember, "deficits dont matter".

Also, history is a beotch.

"The question of how much of the overall trend of deregulation can be credited to Reagan remains contentious.

The economists Raghuram Rajan and Luigi Zingales point out that many of the major deregulation efforts had either taken place or begun before Reagan (note the deregulation of airlines and trucking under Carter, and the beginning of deregulatory reform in railroads, telephones, natural gas, and banking). They argue for this and other reasons that "the move toward markets preceded the leader [Reagan] who is seen as one of their saviors."[7] Economist William A. Niskanen, a member of Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers and later chairman of the libertarian Cato Institute, writes that deregulation had the "lowest priority" of the items on the Reagan agenda[2] given that Reagan "failed to sustain the momentum for deregulation initiated in the 1970s" and that he "added more trade barriers than any administration since Hoover."

Etc etc etc.

 

[HendrixFan]

You left off this part...

And that was only through April this year.

Notice the 10 year cost of the Bush tax cuts was 13% of the debt while the two year costs of the Obama stimulus is 6%...

In dollar terms.
Bush tax cuts: $1.3 trillion over 10 years.
Obama stimulus $700 billion over 2 years.
Cost per year:
Tax cuts $130 billion
Obama spending $350 billion

Bottom line...
Bush sucked
Obama sucks worse.

Keep digging. I wanna see how far you go.

 

[werepossum]

Yeah, that's your one sided and selective view of the GOP candidates. And it doesn't matter which points I agree and disagree with.

When I was referring to the "quality" of the candidate, I meant what matters politically: the candidate's abilities as a campaigner. By that score, Clinton and Obama have been good to great candidates. Mondale and Dukakis, terrible. Gore and Kerry, somewhere in between. Similarly Reagan was excellent as a campaigner, Bob Dole, not so much. And that isn't just based on results, but based on the impression they made on the campaign trail and how well their campaigns were run. Regardless of how you feel about Bob Dole as a public servant or as a person, do you really think he was a strong candidate for POTUS? Bob Dole could even have been a better POTUS than Reagan, but that isn't what we're discussing here.

Remember, the point of the thread is about election probabilities, nothing else. I'm saying the abilities of the opposing candidate to campaign well matter in an election. There are more variables than just the unemployment rate and approval ratings before the campaign starts, much less over a year before it starts. Yet PJ wants to predict Obama's demise even before we know who the GOP candidate will be.

BTW I'm doubtful that Obama is going to win, perhaps even more so than you are. I just don't buy PJ's constant spinning of everything to support conclusions to which he's emotionally attached.

- wolf

Ah, I wasn't thinking about "quality" as in campaigning. I don't know that I could really properly rate any of these people. Bachmann has been doing splendidly, but sometimes great campaigning in the primary equals poor campaigning in the general, especially for the Pubbies since the media who will be handicapping their efforts is overwhelmingly liberal. I think candidates in general and Republicans in particular would prefer that all their primary campaigning would just disappear into a black hole once the general election rolls around.

And I'm still predicting that Obama wins, although I don't think that anyone can truly predict it at this point.

 

[woolfe9999]

Ah, I wasn't thinking about "quality" as in campaigning. I don't know that I could really properly rate any of these people. Bachmann has been doing splendidly, but sometimes great campaigning in the primary equals poor campaigning in the general, especially for the Pubbies since the media who will be handicapping their efforts is overwhelmingly liberal. I think candidates in general and Republicans in particular would prefer that all their primary campaigning would just disappear into a black hole once the general election rolls around.

And I'm still predicting that Obama wins, although I don't think that anyone can truly predict it at this point.

Yes, I agree with you here. Both parties play to the base in the primaries and try to run to the center in the general election. That has become harder and harder to do these days, particularly with everything being documented on Youtube in perpetuity. Obama obviously has the advantage there. Not having to undergo a primary challenge, he can play to the center the entire way through.

Yet the bad economy looms large. PJ is right on the general point that the bad economy is a big negative for Obama. While I am not the great economic prognosticator, my best guess is that we do not double dip, but that we continue to see lackluster economic growth and jobs data between now and next November. Moderate private sector job gains offset by public sector job losses due to state and local budget cuts month over month. I'm guessing unemployment in the high 8 range.

On the GOP side, I'm betting that Perry and Bachmann split the evangelical vote, and the republican voters who prefer an electable candidate will win out with Romney getting the nom. Similar to '08 with McCain. That pits Obama and a weak economy against the one GOP candidate who matches up best against him. That is why I'm doubtful that Obama will win. If the economy recovers more than this, OR if we see Perry or Bachmann get the GOP nom, then my assessment will change.

- wolf

 

[PokerGuy]

Correlation /= causation.

True.

Deficit increase caused by a shrinking tax base and increases in mandatory spending - both triggered by a pre-existing recession - are not caused by whoever happens to be in power at the time. But you're right in a political sense.

Right now we're on a ship that appears to be heading for the rocks, and the captain says "well, you see, it's because the currents, and the previous captain didn't steer correctly, and the wind is not helping, and it's mostly the fault of the passengers in first class". Some of his excuses might actually be true, but that doesn't mean that his steaming full speed ahead towards the rocks is OK, and I can't see how anyone could be confident in that community organizer...... um...captain to right the ship.

 

[mchammer187]

True.



Right now we're on a ship that appears to be heading for the rocks, and the captain says "well, you see, it's because the currents, and the previous captain didn't steer correctly, and the wind is not helping, and it's mostly the fault of the passengers in first class". Some of his excuses might actually be true, but that doesn't mean that his steaming full speed ahead towards the rocks is OK, and I can't see how anyone could be confident in that community organizer...... um...captain to right the ship.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/CBO_Forecast_Changes_for_2009-2012.png

True but we are getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan. We can't even agree on revising Medicare Part D and letting all the bush tax cuts expire?

That said even doing all of that still does not put us on course. That said I don't really see the Tea Party as helping. Instead we should be focusing on something anything even if its small that both sides can agree on. Stuff like the Ryan budget or the People's Budget are never going to fly.

Both sides need to start on common ground and just build from that.

 

[ProfJohn]

Does that include two wars, started by someone else?

These wars are cheaper than the cold war.

 

[ProfJohn]

You'll notice that he offered exactly ZERO evidence as to what programs accounted for this huge disparity outside the stimulus. (and he even got that wrong, as half of it was tax cuts and not new spending) He simply stated his fact free belief and then discounts all evidence that runs contrary to it.

You understand the idea of baseline budgeting?

Every year we spend more on a program than last year.

The Obama stimulus was a HUGE kick in the baseline of many many programs. THAT is where the spending is going to.

Obama is going to spend $800 billion more THIS year than we did in 2008. Do you really believe that all $800 billion is due to the recession?

And it is irrelevant anyways. Obama is the president and he is the one spending this money. There is no one else to blame but him.

 

[ProfJohn]

Oh sorry, I wasn't taking your cutting off the chart at WWII, to exclude FDR, just like I wasn't taking your cutting it off at 7.2%. Let's be clear about this: your chart shows 6 times in a century a candidate runs with an unemployment rate above your arbitrarily chosen 7.2% number. 4 of 6 they lose. Your sample is too small to be scienfitic, and the sample itself is determined by arbitrary criteria selected to support the conclusion you desire. If you think sampling supports the certainty of your conviction in this particular outcome then you're a fool.

If you understand politics then you would understand that anything that happened pre-1960 should pretty much be ignored.

That was the year that TV got involved with the first TV debates and everything has changed since then.

Thins have changed even more in the last decade. We know more about the issues and what the people in Washington are or aren't doing than at any time in our history and it is changing politics. Not always for the good, but things are very different today than 70 years ago when FDR was running.

 

[werepossum]

Yes, I agree with you here. Both parties play to the base in the primaries and try to run to the center in the general election. That has become harder and harder to do these days, particularly with everything being documented on Youtube in perpetuity. Obama obviously has the advantage there. Not having to undergo a primary challenge, he can play to the center the entire way through.

Yet the bad economy looms large. PJ is right on the general point that the bad economy is a big negative for Obama. While I am not the great economic prognosticator, my best guess is that we do not double dip, but that we continue to see lackluster economic growth and jobs data between now and next November. Moderate private sector job gains offset by public sector job losses due to state and local budget cuts month over month. I'm guessing unemployment in the high 8 range.

On the GOP side, I'm betting that Perry and Bachmann split the evangelical vote, and the republican voters who prefer an electable candidate will win out with Romney getting the nom. Similar to '08 with McCain. That pits Obama and a weak economy against the one GOP candidate who matches up best against him. That is why I'm doubtful that Obama will win. If the economy recovers more than this, OR if we see Perry or Bachmann get the GOP nom, then my assessment will change.

- wolf

I'm a bit more pessimistic. I think Perry gets the nod, and while I have not done due diligence on Perry, what I've casually picked up makes him unattractive to me. Although there's very little chance he'll turn out unattractive enough to make me vote for Obama, at this point I'm leaning Libertarian. I have a lot of problems with them too, but at least there's little chance that they will get into power so they are a safe vote.

You understand the idea of baseline budgeting?

Every year we spend more on a program than last year.

The Obama stimulus was a HUGE kick in the baseline of many many programs. THAT is where the spending is going to.

Obama is going to spend $800 billion more THIS year than we did in 2008. Do you really believe that all $800 billion is due to the recession?

And it is irrelevant anyways. Obama is the president and he is the one spending this money. There is no one else to blame but him.

Congress. Obama can't spend money unless and until Congress votes it to him. The same Republican Congress that forced a balanced budget on Clinton (and even that only by using excess Social Security receipts) spent like drunken sailors (or if you prefer, drunken Obamas) under Bush. When the Dems took over, they spent even more. With one brief exception, every Congress under either party's leadership spends significantly more than did the last. As you say, baseline budgeting is an evil that helped get us into this mess.

 

[xj0hnx]

If you understand politics then you would understand that anything that happened pre-1960 should pretty much be ignored.

That was the year that TV got involved with the first TV debates and everything has changed since then.

Thins have changed even more in the last decade. We know more about the issues and what the people in Washington are or aren't doing than at any time in our history and it is changing politics. Not always for the good, but things are very different today than 70 years ago when FDR was running.

Weren't you the one posting charts showing how the trends of unemployment, and voter satisfaction from the last 90 years showed why Obama wasn't going to get elected? Are you saying you don't understand anything about politics?

 

[dali71]

1) the infamous Rev Wright clips were from what--the 70s-80s, before Obama was even in Chicago? There is simply no record of Obama attending or even supporting such ridiculous sermons

Reverend Wright's sermon "The Day of Jerusalem's Fall" (America's chickens are coming home to roost) was delivered on September 16, 2001. His sermon "Confusing God and Government" (God damn America) was delivered on April 13, 2003. Obama was baptized at Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988, and was a member until 2008.

 

[werepossum]

If you understand politics then you would understand that anything that happened pre-1960 should pretty much be ignored.

That was the year that TV got involved with the first TV debates and everything has changed since then.

Thins have changed even more in the last decade. We know more about the issues and what the people in Washington are or aren't doing than at any time in our history and it is changing politics. Not always for the good, but things are very different today than 70 years ago when FDR was running.

Quite true. I've heard Don Hewitt brag that he intentionally made Kennedy President, by shooting him with a soft focus and diffused lighting whilst shooting Nixon with a hard focus and harsh lighting. That's probably overplayed - Nixon's many missteps and bad decisions are well documented - but certainly the 1960 election cycle changed everything.

 

[911paramedic]

The US is a mess, period.

Politicians are only in it for themselves and what they can get for themselves, they've long since forgotten they are servants of the people. Until they get called on that we are in for more of the same.