The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

Everything you write is true - as already mentioned though I advise on finances, not politics - so I was shocked by Obama's lengthy parallel with the Sputnik shock of 1957. The SOTU speech is reviewed by every imaginable department including vast numbers of economists and actuaries, so the ones consulted must have been of the 5th-rate kind; every other kind from 4th-rate and up knows 1957 was the last year in which the federal budget actually was in surplus. The smoke-and-mirrors "surpluses" of the Clinton years were on the operational budgets only, i.e. not including interest on the national debt. If you look up the federal debt numbers (available on the Treasury website) you'll see them rising relentlessly and continuously since 1957.

Politically our choice seems to be either a catastrophe imposed from the outside or a self-generated catastrophe like, for instance, attacking Iran. Can't think which would be worse. You're right all potential Republican candidates already know this - whence March 4th; followed by the Ides of March.

HS, Good post.

The surpluses at the end of the Clinton years were based on income/outlay. The Federal government took in more money than they paid out. They had a surplus. The interest paid out was included in those numbers. There was no failure to include interest on the part of the economists and actuaries. You must have talked to 5th rate accountants to come up with your claim there wasn't a surplus.

On the other hand, the debt went up because the debt number includes money the government owes trust funds it borrows from. The government took in more money in the trust funds than they paid out. The trust funds loaned the money to the general fund. The general fund took on the debt and it was recorded as debt but it didn't add to the deficit for that year since it was not an outlay. It is money that is supposed to be paid back to the trust fund by the general fund.

The real issue is all the money that the general fund owes the trust funds. Currently SS doesn't have a problem and won't have for decades if they are paid back. Pretending the issue is SS ignores the fact that it is the general fund that is and has been running deficits since 1957. The only way to deal with the issue of the general fund is through cutting spending and raising taxes. Pretending we can fix the problem by dealing with SS ignores the real problem.

Good evening to you all.
Representative Michele Bachman (R-Minn) is a strong supporter of the Teaparty movement and is also on our list of Presidential candidates.
She, like many others, can make noise about cutting the education department or funding to NPR. But those various programs which exclude Social Security and Defense etc, make up only 12% (I believe) of our spending.
She proposes cutting $400bn and would include touching the 3rd rail: Defense and Veterans affairs.
She proposes cutting $4.5bn from the $125bn budget for Veterans.
Not surprisingly, her trial balloon was blasted by veterans' groups (who in the article I read are described as being "nonpartisan but with what are thought to be heavily Republican.")
The article I read has a link to her web-site but I couldn't get it to load.

Oh, Now I understand. There was no deficit because the government borrowed, but did not pay back either interest or principal, substantial sums from its trust funds for social security and other future obligations. No defict, but the national debt increased.

Nowe there's a serious explanation !

No, it's the exciting world of accountancy. Did you want to be a lion tamer?

I think Parados is right in reporting on this, Georgeob. I would, however, quibble that the iou's (bonds) bore no interest.

Rather than exciting, I call it creative accounting (by all levels of government). It applies to both parties - equally.

That might work in this case, which I'm not especially familiar with, but creative is often misused when talking about accounting.

I know that this request is probably going to be futile, but is there any possibility that this thread about the Republican Nomination etc could stay on topic? There are many other threads on A2K that address the economy, Obama and the direction of Conservatism in America.

There are many kinds of accounting beyond what we learned in college. One of my favorites is "scientific accounting."

I guess I'll leave it right here, and go somewhere else. See ya.

More from Herman Cain:


Welcome

Fellow Patriots,

Welcome to the new HermanCain.com, home to my presidential exploratory committee. Here, you will find all of the important information necessary to keep up-to-date with my decision-making process as I continue to determine how God wants me to best serve our great nation.

The American Dream is under attack. In fact, a recent survey found 67% of the American People believe America is headed in the wrong direction. Sadly, this comes as no surprise to those of us who have watched an out-of-control federal government that spends recklessly, taxes too much and oversteps its Constitutional limits far too often.

While our country faces grave and complex problems, America is not lost forever. The glory of the American Dream can still be found in the hearts of those who love Her and the promise of freedom She guarantees.

America is an exceptional nation. America is the greatest idea any man has ever imagined. America is the noblest endeavor humanity has ever known. It is because of this that we have the obligation to preserve the American Dream for generations to come.

President Ronald Reagan once said: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States when men were free.”

Fellow patriots, now more than ever, we must come together to take a stand for the future of America. I make this promise to you as I deliberate the ways in which I can do my part to restore and protect the American Dream: I would be the voice of the American People. I will keep you in my thoughts and prayers. I ask you to do the same for me.

-Herman Cain

Nate Silver (538) has a column out which is mildly amusing. He starts out by noting that Presidential approval ratings this far out are meaningless. He goes on to make up a little chart showing some historical comparisons of approval ratings just before an election and what the election outcomes were.
Here is how to read this table:
Roosevelt in (Y = Year) 1940 had an approval rating (AR) of 82. He ended up winning by a 10 point margin. (M). He also won the electoral votes (EV) by 367.
Roosevelt ...... Y: 1940 ..... AR: 62 ..... M: +10 ..... EV: +367
Truman ......... Y: 1948 ..... AR: 50 ..... M: +4.5* .. EV: +114
Eisenhower .. Y: 1956 ..... AR: 70 ..... M: +15.4 .. EV: +384
Johnson ....... Y: 1964 ..... AR: 67 ..... M: +22.6 .. EV: +434
Nixon ........... Y: 1972 ..... AR: 57 ..... M: +23.2 .. EV: +503
Ford ............. Y: 1976 ..... AR: 48 ..... M: -2.1 ..... EV: -54
Carter .......... Y: 1980 ..... AR: 31 ..... M: -9.7 ..... EV: -440
Reagan ........ Y: 1984 ..... AR: 57 ..... M: +18.2 .. EV: +512
GHW Bush .. Y: 1992 ..... AR: 39 ..... M: -5.5 .... EV: -202
Clinton ........ Y: 1996 ..... AR: 55 ..... M: +8.5 .... EV: +220
GW Bush ..... Y: 2004 .... AR: 49 ..... M: +2.4 ... EV: +46

> If an incumbent President has an approval rating of 49 or higher he wins the popular vote and the election. An approval rating of 48 or below results in a defeat. The margin of the victory, in terms of the margin of victory, is interesting. Nixon, for example, had an approval rating of 57 but he trounced the Democrat, George McGovern, by a margin of 23.2 points.
> I added the margin of Electoral College (EV) votes because that is where the outcome is decided in the end.

* Strom Thurmond was a 3rd party candidate and ended up with 39 EV's.

And by the way...
Herman Cain appears on Mysteryman's list of potential candidates. Potential but not, perhaps, viable. We shall see.
A few paragraphs from Cain were posted above. A bit short of substance but it is early on.
The post keeps getting thumbed down, but not by me. On the contrary, I keep thumbing it back up. It is precisely what I was hoping to see here as we slog forward towards the Republican nomination.

It's interesting to see Nixon won by 503EV in 1972.

McGovern won 14 EV's in Mass and 3 in DC. Some guy named John Hospers got 1 in VA.

Here: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/bachmann-repeal-the-senate-to-undermine-obamacare----the-crown-jewel-of-socialism.php

I doubt that she meant we should repeal the President and the Senate.
I think she meant we should refudiate them.

There's a sucker born every minute and two to take him.