Obama '08?

@McTag,

That disingenuous Mac. You're appealing to the mob's belly in order to be popular. Have you seen the mob's belly?

Raising taxes doesn't necessarily mean taking money off the rich. It means increasing the size of the government. You should get real and call for the abolition of the rich. Like the Romans did from time to time with their proscriptions. Like Bernard Shaw did.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Raising taxes doesn't increase the size of government. It only pays for the size of government we already have.

2 Replies

@parados,

Raising taxes "might" also help pay down the debt if our government quits wasting money we don't have with so many give-away programs.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Raising taxes doesn't increase the size of government. It only pays for the size of government we already have.

True enough ! Indeed it is a tautology.

However the underlying truth is that we have far too much government: it has grown very fast in the past three years in terms of its regulatory reach and the economically harmful policies it has introduced with respect to energy and trade policy; health care; and mindless support of self-serving labor unions that have already been rejected by the vast majority of private sector workers.. Until we change it this government will continue to dasmage both our economy and our society with its class warfare rhetoric and wasteful paternalistic political goals.

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

If Conservatives Were Right About the Economy
August 4th, 2011 at 9:13 am

David Frum

Further to yesterday’s post about the respective economic acumen of the Wall Street Journal editorial page vs. Prof. Paul Krugman:

My conservative friends argue that the policies of Barack Obama are responsible for the horrifying length and depth of the economic crisis.

Question: Which policies?

Obama’s only tax increases – those contained in the Affordable Care Act – do not go into effect until 2014. Personal income tax rates and corporate tax rates are no higher today than they have been for the past decade. The payroll tax has actually been cut by 2 points. Total federal tax collections have dropped by 4 points of GDP since 2007, from 18+% to 14+%, the lowest rate since the Truman administration.

If so minded, you could describe Barack Obama as the biggest tax cutter in American history.

We have not seen a major surge in federal regulation, at least by the usual rough metrics: the page count of the Federal Register has risen by less than 5% since George W. Bush’s last year in office. Trade remains as free as it was a decade ago.

While the Affordable Care Act itself will eventually have major economic consequences, most of its provisions remain only impending.

Energy prices have surged, but that’s hardly a response to administration policies. Conservatives complain about restrictions on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, but on a planet that produces 63 million barrels of oil per day, a few thousand more or less from the Gulf will not much budge the price of oil. Rising oil prices are a story about Chinese and Indian consumption and Middle Eastern political instability, not about US drilling or lack thereof.

The Dodd-Frank bill does somewhat curtail the activities of some banks and investment firms. But is it seriously argued that this could be the cause?

Conservatives complain about excess government spending. Fine. But isn’t the evil of excess government spending supposed to be inflation rather than recession? And where’s the inflation?

There’s a strong case for condemning Barack Obama for the things he might have done, but did not do. He might have cut payroll taxes more and faster. He might have pushed for more expansionary Federal Reserve governors. He might have designed a better stimulus. All true. But the things he did do? Texas Gov. Rick Perry today urges us to believe that the economy is gripped by the worst slump since the Great Depression because Obama spoke disrespectfully of the owners of private jets. To which I can only say: Really? That’s the indictment? Really?

http://www.frumforum.com/if-the-conservatives-were-right-about-the-economy

The things you complain about have nothing to do with the problems in our economy at all.

I also highly suggest you read and consider the following:

http://www.frumforum.com/could-it-be-that-our-enemies-were-right

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Incidentally,

Obama is the only one who is polling well in light of the brinksmanship over the debt. Boehner and the Republicans are tanking in pretty much every poll I've seen on the matter. Here's just one from today -

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/cbsnyt-poll-congressional-disapproval-at-an-all-time-high.php?ref=fpblg

And yet, you and others seem to think this will be a winning political issue for the Republicans moving forward.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Do you believe these poll results are predictive of the outcome in the coming election?

A very unusually slow recovery appears headed for a second dip. The GDP growth values predicted and claimed by the Administration for the last four quarters have been revised significantly downward and we have for some time very clearly been slipping back towards a new cycle of contraction. The obviously harmful decisions of the Administration to suspend petroleum production in Alaska and along our coasts; to launch a regulatory attack on coal fired electrical power generation; to delay needed trade agreements in search of payoffs for its labor union paymasters; and to paralyze investment through vague regulatory legislation that gives unwarranted (and unpredictable) discretion to as yet unnamed regulators in finance, corporate governance and health care -- have all delayed entreprenurial initiatives across broad sectors of the economy. The class warfare and redistributionist rhetoric has made investors and entrepreneurs suspicious of the further intentions of an administration that, by its own actions has already demonstrated its hostility to them.

The pursuit of his prefabricated social policies in the face of contitions that clearly called for something different, together with his own feckless pseudo leadership with respect to the government budget and international affairs ("leading from behind: was the very telling rationalization of one of Obama's spokesmen) - together with his strange inclination to scold others for his own failings, have cost him the confidence of a steadily growing majority of the population. As our economic and international situations continue to worsen his support will continue to decline.

Obama will be soundly defeated in 2012 and, when he is gone, will be reviled more or less as was Jimmy Carter.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Polls don't predict future elections, but the damage done to people's pocket books certainly does.

The crisis that the tea party created from the debt ceiling will be remembered by the majority of seniors and those who have lost of their retirement savings.

People don't forget when it costs them $$$$$$.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Do you believe these poll results are predictive of the outcome in the coming election?

No, but they are a data point, and one which doesn't benefit the Republicans in any way.

Quote:

... together with his strange inclination to scold others for his own failings, have cost him the confidence of a steadily growing majority of the population. As our economic and international situations continue to worsen his support will continue to decline.

There are no 'rising amounts of Americans' which agree with the politics or policies you espouse. There is no steadily growing majority of the population who believes what you say; the NBC poll I linked to above shows that larger numbers of Americans trust Obama on the economy than the Republicans in Congress. The vast majority of other polls on the question show similar results.

Obama is certainly no more unpopular now than he has been for a year and a half; his approval ratings are essentially unchanged. However, the Republican party has seen their approval ratings tank in the last 9 months, a data point which you never address, ever.

You are completely wrong when you discuss the trend in attitudes of Americans, and you refuse to even discuss any data which could judge whether you are right or not. You just re-launch into the same litany about energy production and nebulous regulations. Can we just call that 'George's argument A?' That way, you could just type 'Insert argument A here' instead of having to re-rant every single time, and I wouldn't be tasked with reading a bunch of crap that has very little to do with the economic problems we face today, and a bunch to do with your pet peeves.

Quote:

Obama will be soundly defeated in 2012 and, when he is gone, will be reviled more or less as was Jimmy Carter.

Who exactly is going to beat him? He's ahead of all of your potential candidates in pretty much every poll in every competitive state, and the GOP is very unpopular right now in FL and OH. Obama's likely to raise more money than all of your candidates combined. And the Republicans have been pushing unpopular brinksmanship and unpopular cuts to Medicare and SS as well. That is not going to turn into a positive and winning campaign message.

Your confidence is misplaced.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

The crisis that the tea party created from the debt ceiling will be remembered by the majority of seniors and those who have lost of their retirement savings.

Isn't that the precise problem: seniors howling with indignation? Anybody who talks economic sense is unelectable. ci. is actually criticising democracy and the extension of life expectancies.

Raising the debt ceiling merely allows seniors to continue with the jamboree and to pass the cost onto their kids and grandkids who they love so dearly.

You could redefine seniors. But they'll howl at that as well.

The people who eat the budget can now outvote the people who provide it.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Your confidence is misplaced.

Cycloptichorn

We shall see....

You were wrong about the last election as well.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Your confidence is misplaced.

Cycloptichorn

We shall see....

You were wrong about the last election as well.

Only half wrong. And I'll remind you that I was betting against the polling evidence - same as you are doing now.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

And it's all because the moon is made of blue cheese as well.

Reciting a bunch of BS doesn't make it fact goerge..

More regulatory reach from the US govt? Oh please.. You can't provide evidence but it doesn't mean you don't believe it I guess.

1 Reply

@parados,

You can start with Dodd Frank, Obamacare , the Consumer Affairs department, and EPA's regulation of CO2. There's more too....

It takes a mindless, self-absorbed, pedantic little pipsqueak to demand proof of what is before his eyes.

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

economically harmful policies it has introduced with respect to energy and trade policy; health care; and mindless support of self-serving labor unions

Dodd Frank - Nothing to do with what you claimed.

Obamacare? Health care but the "economically harmful policy" is your opinion it seems and not that of the CBO.

The Consumer Affairs department - Nothing to do with what you claimed and hasn't introduced any regulation to my knowledge

EPA regulation of CO2? It hasn't gone into effect yet and won't for several months.

So.. you haven't provided a single harmful policy affecting what you claimed.

Quote:

It takes a mindless, self-absorbed, pedantic little pipsqueak to demand proof of what is before his eyes.

Sorry I asked for something you can't seem to produce.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

You can start with Dodd Frank, Obamacare , the Consumer Affairs department, and EPA's regulation of CO2. There's more too...

There's no evidence- none - that the Dodd-Frank reforms have put in place any regulations that are keeping jobs from being created. If you want people to believe that there are, point out the specific regulation. I'm betting that you can't do so, because you don't even know which regulations you are referring to, that are supposedly keeping growth from occurring.

Re: HCR, the vast majority of regulations won't kick in for 2 years. So that's pure bullshit on your part.

The Consumer Affairs department, same as above. Specifically, what about it is harming employment or expansion? Have they even put any regulations in place? I don't think they have.

Re: the EPA, you should take that up with the Supreme Court, who - under Bush - found that they have not only the right but an obligation to do exactly that. It has nothing to do with Obama at all.

I know you won't say 'uncertainty' any longer, as there is no group in America who is pushing more economic uncertainty at this time than the party you support. The debt ceiling brinksmanship was irresponsible and foolish in the extreme, and caused a giant amount of uncertainty; and yet, you cheered it on and supported it the whole way. There's not a little hypocrisy between your two stated positions.

I'll repeat again: you have zero evidence that any of these things are keeping jobs from growing, at all. They are merely political positions you disagree with, and like to repeat over and over again without ever providing a shred of proof for any of it. And when people ask for proof, you turn straight to Ad Hominem attacks, which is pretty ******* weak and you know it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Please read the following when you get a chance -

http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/supply-side-vs-demand-side-recessions.html

The Conservative explanation for our current recession would be laughed at in a basic economics class. It makes no sense whatsoever and relies upon a bunch of bullshit assumptions and downright misunderstanding of fiscal policy.

Did you read the Frum piece I linked to above, about the necessity of examining whether or not your opponents are correct? I would once again request that you do so, and repeat what he wrote: who do you think was more correct in describing our economic situation in the last decade, Krugman, or the WSJ opinion page? Because, the answer is quite obviously not the side that you have long supported.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Please read the following when you get a chance -

http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/supply-side-vs-demand-side-recessions.html

The Conservative explanation for our current recession would be laughed at in a basic economics class. ....

Mr Noah Smith - your blog source on economics - states he's a PhD candidate at the University of Michigan in biology statistics. The relevant department
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/mathbio/participants
at U Michigan still lists his name, but as a dropout - neither a graduate nor a current student. If Mr Smith is your source of economic wisdom - caution! <G>

1 Reply

@High Seas,

That doesn't adequately answer the points that he raised at all. Perhaps you can point out the specific error in judgment he made during that post?

If you put as much effort into analyzing the content as you seem to have working on an Ad Hominem attack against the author, you could easily show that he's perfectly incorrect. Right? I mean, that would really put us lefties in our place. Whereas your current effort is, shall we say, rather unconvincing.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

If you have an argument to make here, Cyclo, then make it yourself. I'm not very interested in the various blogs from which you get your packaged opinions, nor do I feel any obligation to counter the arguments their authors make on a point-by-point basis. They aren't a part of our conversation.

H.S. pointing out that there is an apparent contradiction between the author's claimed credentials and the facts as listed by the institution from which he claims them does not constitute an ad hominem attack. It is instead a routine credentials check ... and well-warranted particularly for one who claims to be a "PhD candidate" - an all-too-commonly exaggerated claim.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know