65 replies to this topic

[kent_island_sailor]

Seriously, does anyone think Romney has a chance if the economy is taking off come election time?
Does anyone think Obama will win if it is still limping along at 2 knots fighting the current?

[Innocent Bystander]

Seriously, does anyone think Romney has a chance if the economy is taking off come election time?
Does anyone think Obama will win if it is still limping along at 2 knots fighting the current?

Obama promised hope and change. Folks wanted that. Mid term election was a no confidence vote.

You are on track. If it looks like he is improving things, he'll get another term. If not, he had his chance.

[jimbot]

He's running out of time on this. If things don't show improvement by the end of July, and continue thru the election, he's toast. A bump in September/October won't change people's minds in time. Things were improving for Bush I, but it wasn't enough to get people to vote for him.

[d'ranger]

He's running out of time on this. If things don't show improvement by the end of July, and continue thru the election, he's toast. A bump in September/October won't change people's minds in time. Things were improving for Bush I, but it wasn't enough to get people to vote for him.

Ross Perot splintered off enough votes for Bush to lose. People vote with their pocketbooks. If October is great Obama wins.

The other factor is Romney - at some point he has to start detailing what he will do, just saying he will do things differently won't work much longer. There is already some frustration among the troops. Just sayin...

[zzrider]

The sad thing is, some people apparently think that it matters which of them wins.

[Mark K]

The sad thing is, some people apparently think that it matters which of them wins.

It does. Ask about 200,000 dead and a couple million displaced Iraqis.

[Bull Gator]

And 5000 dead us servicemen

[zzrider]

So, Obama winning a second term will bring our dead soldiers back to life?

Why are we still in Afghanistan again?

Note: I'm not saying Romney would be any better; just disputing any supposed difference.

[Bull Gator]

Of course not but Romney is a lightweight on foreign policy easily manipulated by evil fuckers like Bolton. We can't risk another military misadventure.

http://www.slate.com...seriously_.html

[Bull Gator]

In the end people who in the political center must have a viable choice when considering whom to vote for. Romney stand for nothing he takes no stand on any position.

No reasonable person can cast a vote for him

[badlatitude]

[Mark K]

So, Obama winning a second term will bring our dead soldiers back to life?

Why are we still in Afghanistan again?

Note: I'm not saying Romney would be any better; just disputing any supposed difference.

Point being, there are two areas where Presidents have vast power and influence, foreign policy and selecting Supreme Court justices.

[billy backstay]

The huge difference between the two is that If Romney wins and cancels the affordable health act it will mean misery, premature death and bankruptcy for many, many more americans.

[Saorsa]

The huge difference between the two is that If Romney wins and cancels the affordable health act it will mean misery, premature death and bankruptcy for many, many more americans.

Death is always on time.

[billy backstay]

The huge difference between the two is that If Romney wins and cancels the affordable health act it will mean misery, premature death and bankruptcy for many, many more americans.

Death is always on time.

It can be premature if the person cannot afford health care. I know some hard working middle class people who went bankrupt over health costs, one of them a tea party conservative.

[Mark K]

The huge difference between the two is that If Romney wins and cancels the affordable health act it will mean misery, premature death and bankruptcy for many, many more americans.

There will be some differences in things like that, but the power of the office in those areas carry's some pretty big limits, and on that specific issue, I agree with zz there won't be a heck of a lot of difference.

http://www.thedailys...-rules-of-order

Repeal D replace with R. All better now.

[kmccabe]

Are you really that dense?

[billy backstay]

Are you really that dense?

POTUS can no more change gas prices than create jobs. Still waiting for Mittens to get specific on how he is going to create all those jobs he keeps squawking about. He sure killed a lot of jobs during his time at Bain....

[zzrider]

As far as the economy is concerned, only one thing matters: government cannot continually spend more than it can take in via taxes. Since neither version of Obamney is going to reduce spending to that which can be paid for with current taxes, it doesn't much matter which one we elect.

[Jon Eisberg]

Are you really that dense?

I think he may be suggesting the American electorate is really that simpleminded...

I'm inclined to agree, and think the two numbers/trends that will determine this election (barring something totally unforseen, of course) are the unemployment figures in November, and the price of gas...

[Bull Gator]

I think Israel will attack Iran in an attempt to unseat Obama but that it will backfire when Americans see the disastrous consequences of backing Israel and flock to support Obama

[Mark K]

As far as the economy is concerned, only one thing matters: government cannot continually spend more than it can take in via taxes. Since neither version of Obamney is going to reduce spending to that which can be paid for with current taxes, it doesn't much matter which one we elect.

Well, if it's any consolation...I caught a bit of a Afghanistan hearing on Afghanistan last night channel surfing through CSPAN. An old southern white-haired Congressman in white suit and an R was addressing Max Boot, General Kean, and a couple other Neo-con numbskull arm-chair Hoplites, who feature prominently in Mitt's team. They were asking for another $100 billion for Afghanistan.

Paraphrased: "Are you people fucking nuts!?!"

[zzrider]

Roger that Mark, which is one of many reasons I can't vote for either of these two fuckwits.

[cmilliken]

Seriously, does anyone think Romney has a chance if the economy is taking off come election time?
Does anyone think Obama will win if it is still limping along at 2 knots fighting the current?

The time bomb that hasn't actually been referenced in the economic debate so far is the kick the can sequestration deal on the military/entitlement spending. The democrats pushed it off till after the election but frankly, they should read the rules a little bit more closely. For example, many governement and union contracts require advanced notice - typically 60 to 90 days - before the end of the agreement of major changes like layoffs, etc. The rumbling in the defense industry is that they're expecting cuts on the neighborhood of 2-3 million jobs across 35 states - announced between October 1st and November 1st - in other words, 60-90 days before the end of the sequestration deal which is January 1st, 2013. The medical industry is expecting similar cuts, particularly in the southern states which tend to have a lot of retirees. Chopping 1 trillion dollars of spending DOES have implications and the union rules, as written, REQUIRE that the terminations be announced a week or so before the election at the latest - unless some other deal is cut.

Next time you see Penetta pleading to defer the military cuts - like he did today for example - remember, he's a DEMOCRAT. Why would he be so passonate? You think Obama REALLY wants those cuts to go through one week before the general election? Maybe - but I tend to doubt it. No congress can tie the hands of a future congress so this deal was pushed out as far as it could be - but not quite far enough really.

[Bull Gator]

Losing the military related jobs will be a tough but necessary transition to a new green economy. The military has long been a drag on our economy . We have right sized the private sector time to do the same with the military industrial complex

[Mark K]

Roger that Mark, which is one of many reasons I can't vote for either of these two fuckwits.

Romney is with the neocons. He spoke about what a great, far seeing and brilliant man Cheney is. Obama is pulling us out of Afghanistan.

On the economy, divided government tends to result in less spending, and slower growth.

http://blogs.investo...-year-yet-again

The R's would have "skin in the game" on unemployment if they had the White House and at least one, but maybe both chambers of Congress. Probably less than a dozen of them will continue to believe unemployment drops with lower spending with Mitt telling them otherwise. With Obama, they can continue to safely block everything.

For me, it seems pretty clear, the economy would probably pick up with Mitt, and so would spending. The trade-off would be probably war with Iran. War is always a great way to justify spending. Usually the best.

[zzrider]

The only problem with that analysis, Mark, is that you are equating government spending with economic growth. History illustrates the fallacy of this conventional wisdom: since the 1980s, debt has consistently grown faster than GDP, which means that in reality we have had no real economic growth in the past 30 years.

This is simply unsustainable.

[Regatta Dog]

Are you really that dense?

POTUS can no more change gas prices than create jobs. Still waiting for Mittens to get specific on how he is going to create all those jobs he keeps squawking about. He sure killed a lot of jobs during his time at Bain....

You are full retard. Love you anyway, mate.

[Mark K]

The only problem with that analysis, Mark, is that you are equating government spending with economic growth. History illustrates the fallacy of this conventional wisdom: since the 1980s, debt has consistently grown faster than GDP, which means that in reality we have had no real economic growth in the past 30 years.

This is simply unsustainable.

The flaw in that is in believing "GDP" is an end-all, be-all definitive indicator of "economy".

It's frequently used as such in the tribal partisan research products that masquerade as scholarship these days, so don't feel bad.

[the_abandoned_brane]

Seriously, does anyone think Romney has a chance if the economy is taking off come election time?
Does anyone think Obama will win if it is still limping along at 2 knots fighting the current?

yep. its all about the economy.

[Regatta Dog]

Seriously, does anyone think Romney has a chance if the economy is taking off come election time?
Does anyone think Obama will win if it is still limping along at 2 knots fighting the current?

yep. its all about the economy.

If Romney wins and the economy improves, it is Obama's fault.

[Saorsa]

Personally, I think the only thing a president can do about the economy is fuck it up.

Most of our 'growth' in the last 20 years has been based on easy credit. The promise to pay back money, not actual cash.

That ranks right up there with Tiki's idea to just print money.

There are actually folks without a lot of money but with a fair amount of common sense who have decided that they better get that debt payed down before spending a lot more.

Of course, our 'leaders' will probably decide to get out of this 'crisis' by inflation.

If you are smart, watch the signs and borrow judiciously to buy stuff that will retain value that you can sell later.

[Tom Ray]

Roger that Mark, which is one of many reasons I can't vote for either of these two fuckwits.

Romney is with the neocons.

True, and neocons are a bunch of guys who shed most of their lefty ideas but kept the interventionist bent in foreign policy. I don't see the difference you do there, but agree with your other one: appointments, and not just judges.

[zzrider]

Saorsa, you actually understated the problem with economic growth vs debt - for the past 30 years, debt growth has exeeded GPD growth! Now apparently Mark doesn't like the GDP metric, but he didn't offer an alternative means to measure economic growth (or lack thereof).

Bottom line is, we have had NO real economic growth in 30 years! It's all been a debt-fueled Ponzi scheme and is simply unsustainable.

[VwaP]

WSJ CHIEF ECONOMIST: 75% OF OBAMACARE COSTS WILL FALL ON BACKS OF THOSE MAKING LESS THAN $120K A YEAR
By: Jim Hoft
6/30/2012 11:44 AM



Take Your Medicine, America…<br style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; ">Stephen Moore, Senior Economics Writer with the Wall Street Journal, told FOX and Friends this morning that nearly 75% of Obamacare costs will fall on the backs of those Americans making less than $120,000 a year.

[Bull Gator]

I dont hnow about that.

I think MRI's, apple iPhone, cell phones in general, the internet and numerous other examples point to real economic growth

[zzrider]

I dont hnow about that.

I think MRI's, apple iPhone, cell phones in general, the internet and numerous other examples point to real economic growth

I won't dispute the value of technology such as MRIs. iPhones? Seriously? Please don't give me Chinese-made status symbol toys as sign of economic advancement. Besides, you still aren't addressing my point. Giving examples of technological advancement is not a measure of actual economic growth vs. debt growth.

I can buy all kinds of nice toys with credit cards and give the illusion of financial prosperity. That's what we've been doing as a nation for 30 years.

[Mark K]

Saorsa, you actually understated the problem with economic growth vs debt - for the past 30 years, debt growth has exeeded GPD growth! Now apparently Mark doesn't like the GDP metric, but he didn't offer an alternative means to measure economic growth (or lack thereof).

Bottom line is, we have had NO real economic growth in 30 years! It's all been a debt-fueled Ponzi scheme and is simply unsustainable.

No, GDP has a place.

It's the use of it as I described it though. That's different that "doesn't like", which you wrote.


GDP/debt=0="No growth"? How do the years between 1942 and 1945 fit into that theory?

[zzrider]

GDP/debt=0="No growth"? How do the years between 1942 and 1945 fit into that theory?

Wow... I didn't have you pegged as a warhawk, Mark. Yeah, I guess we could always start a new conventional global war to solve our economic problems (at least for 4 years). Gotta do it right though. None of this namby-pamby high-tech stuff with smart bombs and remote controlled drones in little third-world countries. Let's invade Europe and Asia with group troops! Hell yeah! We need huge fleets of ships and millions of ground troops fighting in trenches! We need to make it so bad we can't get new tires for our cars and our mothers and sisters and wives have to go work in the factories building ships and airplanes because everyone with an X chromosome is out fighting! That'll pump GDP for sure!

[Mark K]

GDP/debt=0="No growth"? How do the years between 1942 and 1945 fit into that theory?

Wow... I didn't have you pegged as a warhawk, Mark. Yeah, I guess we could always start a new conventional global war to solve our economic problems (at least for 4 years). Gotta do it right though. None of this namby-pamby high-tech stuff with smart bombs and remote controlled drones in little third-world countries. Let's invade Europe and Asia with group troops! Hell yeah! We need huge fleets of ships and millions of ground troops fighting in trenches! We need to make it so bad we can't get new tires for our cars and our mothers and sisters and wives have to go work in the factories building ships and airplanes because everyone with an X chromosome is out fighting! That'll pump GDP for sure!

I didn't write that either. Seems you want to argue with an imaginary person. Be aware, piles of straw can be a fire hazard.

[zzrider]

GDP/debt=0="No growth"? How do the years between 1942 and 1945 fit into that theory?

Wow... I didn't have you pegged as a warhawk, Mark. Yeah, I guess we could always start a new conventional global war to solve our economic problems (at least for 4 years). Gotta do it right though. None of this namby-pamby high-tech stuff with smart bombs and remote controlled drones in little third-world countries. Let's invade Europe and Asia with group troops! Hell yeah! We need huge fleets of ships and millions of ground troops fighting in trenches! We need to make it so bad we can't get new tires for our cars and our mothers and sisters and wives have to go work in the factories building ships and airplanes because everyone with an X chromosome is out fighting! That'll pump GDP for sure!

I didn't write that either. Seems you want to argue with an imaginary person. Be aware, piles of straw can be a fire hazard.

Then what exactly was your point in bringing up the economy of war from 1942-1945?

[Mark K]

GDP/debt=0="No growth"? How do the years between 1942 and 1945 fit into that theory?

Wow... I didn't have you pegged as a warhawk, Mark. Yeah, I guess we could always start a new conventional global war to solve our economic problems (at least for 4 years). Gotta do it right though. None of this namby-pamby high-tech stuff with smart bombs and remote controlled drones in little third-world countries. Let's invade Europe and Asia with group troops! Hell yeah! We need huge fleets of ships and millions of ground troops fighting in trenches! We need to make it so bad we can't get new tires for our cars and our mothers and sisters and wives have to go work in the factories building ships and airplanes because everyone with an X chromosome is out fighting! That'll pump GDP for sure!

I didn't write that either. Seems you want to argue with an imaginary person. Be aware, piles of straw can be a fire hazard.

Then what exactly was your point in bringing up the economy of war from 1942-1945?

That GDP/dept ratio is a simplistic, maybe even be misleading gauge of "growth".

It's an indicator of "health", mainly, and of a particular kind of health.

[zzrider]

That a GDP/dept ratio is simplistic. Can maybe even be misleading.

Fair enough. Then show me another metric that illustrates real economic growth in excess of debt growth over the past 30 years.

Actually, I agree with your distaste with the GDP metric - GDP includes government spending on the plus side of the equation - which IMO is completely wrong. Government spending can only come from one of three places - (1) it can be taxed from the productive economy, (2) it can be borrowed from the productive economy, and (3) it can be conjured out of thin air by currency debasement. All three of these sources of the money government spends are a drag - would be called "overhead" in private industry - on the real productive economy.

Thus, the GDP number as it stands is already overstated since government spending is added to GDP and that spending is product of debt growth.

[Mark K]

That a GDP/dept ratio is simplistic. Can maybe even be misleading.

Fair enough. Then show me another metric that illustrates real economic growth in excess of debt growth over the past 30 years.

Actually, I agree with your distaste with the GDP metric - GDP includes government spending on the plus side of the equation - which IMO is completely wrong. Government spending can only come from one of three places - (1) it can be taxed from the productive economy, (2) it can be borrowed from the productive economy, and (3) it can be conjured out of thin air by currency debasement. All three of these sources of the money government spends are a drag - would be called "overhead" in private industry - on the real productive economy.

Thus, the GDP number as it stands is already overstated since government spending is added to GDP and that spending is product of debt growth.

I edited my post to elaborate on my meaning.

Growth and health are different things. I quite agree it indicates a lack of health.

[kmccabe]

Are you really that dense?

POTUS can no more change gas prices than create jobs. Still waiting for Mittens to get specific on how he is going to create all those jobs he keeps squawking about. He sure killed a lot of jobs during his time at Bain....

You are full retard. Love you anyway, mate.

Yea, he is. That's why liberalism works kinda - we've got to take care of everyone. Especially those welll....

[kmccabe]

That GDP/debt ratio is a simplistic, maybe even be misleading gauge of "growth".

It's an indicator of "health", mainly, and of a particular kind of health.

fixed it for you. Speaking of simplistic.

[Mark K]

That GDP/debt ratio is a simplistic, maybe even be misleading gauge of "growth".

It's an indicator of "health", mainly, and of a particular kind of health.

Fixed it for you Speaking of simplistic.

Fixed it for you. Speaking of pedantic.

[Saorsa]

Saorsa, you actually understated the problem with economic growth vs debt - for the past 30 years, debt growth has exeeded GPD growth! Now apparently Mark doesn't like the GDP metric, but he didn't offer an alternative means to measure economic growth (or lack thereof).

Bottom line is, we have had NO real economic growth in 30 years! It's all been a debt-fueled Ponzi scheme and is simply unsustainable.

No, GDP has a place.

It's the use of it as I described it though. That's different that "doesn't like", which you wrote.


GDP/debt=0="No growth"? How do the years between 1942 and 1945 fit into that theory?

Those years were funded by government spending on war materiels based on long term bonds. That was spent because the feeling was that we would no longer exist as a nation without that spending. During those years, there was little consumer debt beyond mortgages and car loans (if you could buy a car). In the 50s, we began to use consumer credit to a much greater extent. Our current debt is consumer and government spending.

During those years and the ones immediately following, people typically bought a home and paid it off in 20 years. 30 year mortgages are a lot more recent (like 6 and 7 year car loans). They might mortgage again for a kids education but, most kids didn't go to college then.

After the war, we were the only industrial nation left standing and we reaped the profits of rebuilding Europe and the Far East. Unfortunately, we took on the role of protector to the world. We entered alliances with just about everybody except China and Russia. Our allies lived in peace, supporting minimal militaries, behind the expensive shield we provided and built their own economies. Now, they are our industrial equals.

The admonitions against permanent alliances and standing armies should have been heeded.

[savoir]

The sad thing is, some people apparently think that it matters which of them wins.

It does. Ask about 200,000 dead and a couple million displaced Iraqis.

Either one would have invaded had he been in office at the time.

[Mark K]

The sad thing is, some people apparently think that it matters which of them wins.

It does. Ask about 200,000 dead and a couple million displaced Iraqis.

Either one would have invaded had he been in office at the time.

Iraq? I think not.

[Tom Ray]

The sad thing is, some people apparently think that it matters which of them wins.

It does. Ask about 200,000 dead and a couple million displaced Iraqis.

Either one would have invaded had he been in office at the time.

Iraq? I think not.

So Gore would have reversed Clinton's (continuation of papa Bush's) official policy of pursuing regime change in Iraq? I think not.

[opa1]

I think that as the Election Cycle nears November there will be a host of issues that will be equal to or more important than the economy. The U.S. economy is fairly self-sufficient and I think we are leading the world out of the depression that was put upon the world in 2008. Other than injecting dollars into the economy (which Obama did), the only other factor that would improve the economy is the return of manufacturing. Isolationism is the only sure-fire remedy for that, and that ain't gonna happen. I think we are starting to see an improvement in manufacturing jobs in the U.S., though slowly. This is going to be a long slog out of the depression of 2008.

[Mark K]

The sad thing is, some people apparently think that it matters which of them wins.

It does. Ask about 200,000 dead and a couple million displaced Iraqis.

Either one would have invaded had he been in office at the time.

Iraq? I think not.

So Gore would have reversed Clinton's (continuation of papa Bush's) official policy of pursuing regime change in Iraq? I think not.

That wasn't used as the primary justification to build the case that invading Iraq was necessary.

[Clove Hitch]

So Gore would have reversed Clinton's (continuation of papa Bush's) official policy of pursuing regime change in Iraq? I think not.

What a crock of shit. You don't need to invade and occupy a country for years to get regime change. For recent examples, check Libya and Egypt and Yemen.

[jimbot]

I think that as the Election Cycle nears November there will be a host of issues that will be equal to or more important than the economy. The U.S. economy is fairly self-sufficient and I think we are leading the world out of the depression that was put upon the world in 2008. Other than injecting dollars into the economy (which Obama did), the only other factor that would improve the economy is the return of manufacturing. Isolationism is the only sure-fire remedy for that, and that ain't gonna happen. I think we are starting to see an improvement in manufacturing jobs in the U.S., though slowly. This is going to be a long slog out of the depression of 2008.

Oops. http://www.ism.ws/ismreport/mfgrob.cfm

Economic activity in the manufacturing sector contracted in June for the first time since July 2009

While the economy is still growning, the rate of growth is slowing.

[Tom Ray]

So Gore would have reversed Clinton's (continuation of papa Bush's) official policy of pursuing regime change in Iraq? I think not.

That wasn't used as the primary justification to build the case that invading Iraq was necessary.

Perhaps because the time was not right.

What a crock of shit. You don't need to invade and occupy a country for years to get regime change. For recent examples, check Libya and Egypt and Yemen.

It's true that the neocons are, relatively speaking, amateur hour at the intervention game. In addition to being messier, they could never get away with calling the situation in Libya an "emergency" that required bypassing Congressional authorization. Only a pro can do that and be praised for his innovation.

[kmccabe]

I think that as the Election Cycle nears November there will be a host of issues that will be equal to or more important than the economy. The U.S. economy is fairly self-sufficient

Want to put some money on the line on that last bit there Grandpa?

[kmccabe]

So Gore would have reversed Clinton's (continuation of papa Bush's) official policy of pursuing regime change in Iraq? I think not.

That wasn't used as the primary justification to build the case that invading Iraq was necessary.

Perhaps because the time was not right.

What a crock of shit. You don't need to invade and occupy a country for years to get regime change. For recent examples, check Libya and Egypt and Yemen.

It's true that the neocons are, relatively speaking, amateur hour at the intervention game. In addition to being messier, they could never get away with calling the situation in Libya an "emergency" that required bypassing Congressional authorization. Only a pro can do that and be praised for his innovation.

You mean our Nobel Prize winner (with only three months in office) go figure..

[Mark K]

So Gore would have reversed Clinton's (continuation of papa Bush's) official policy of pursuing regime change in Iraq? I think not.

That wasn't used as the primary justification to build the case that invading Iraq was necessary.

Perhaps because the time was not right.

What a crock of shit. You don't need to invade and occupy a country for years to get regime change. For recent examples, check Libya and Egypt and Yemen.

It's true that the neocons are, relatively speaking, amateur hour at the intervention game. In addition to being messier, they could never get away with calling the situation in Libya an "emergency" that required bypassing Congressional authorization. Only a pro can do that and be praised for his innovation.

You mean our Nobel Prize winner (with only three months in office) go figure..

ODS

[kmccabe]

Yea, he's special.. so special we've got to give him a Nobel prize.

[Mark K]

Yea, he's special.. so special we've got to give him a Nobel prize.

ACORN!

[Saorsa]

Perhaps because the time was not right.

What a crock of shit. You don't need to invade and occupy a country for years to get regime change. For recent examples, check Libya and Egypt and Yemen.

It's true that the neocons are, relatively speaking, amateur hour at the intervention game. In addition to being messier, they could never get away with calling the situation in Libya an "emergency" that required bypassing Congressional authorization. Only a pro can do that and be praised for his innovation.

You mean our Nobel Prize winner (with only three months in office) go figure..

ODS

No, what makes it so special is that the Nobel nominations had to have been made before he took office.

[kmccabe]

Perhaps because the time was not right.

What a crock of shit. You don't need to invade and occupy a country for years to get regime change. For recent examples, check Libya and Egypt and Yemen.

It's true that the neocons are, relatively speaking, amateur hour at the intervention game. In addition to being messier, they could never get away with calling the situation in Libya an "emergency" that required bypassing Congressional authorization. Only a pro can do that and be praised for his innovation.

You mean our Nobel Prize winner (with only three months in office) go figure..

ODS

No, what makes it so special is that the Nobel nominations had to have been made before he took office.

indeed - he was THAT special.

[jimbot]

indeed - he was THAT special.

Short bus special?

[Saorsa]

indeed - he was THAT special.

Short bus special?

No, his perception was that all seats on the short bus were too close to the back and he wasn't going there.

[Mark K]

Just being "not George Bush" got him that prize. That was BDS.