Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
    I hope you realize that Rep. Smith is talking about the bailout bill and the Bush administration, not the current stimulus bill.
    Right.

    Federal reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke threatened the specter of martial law back in 2009 when he said if the stimulus was not passed, the economy would collapse and anarchy would prevail.
    Thousands of foreign troops are in the U.S. to assist with "domestic emergencies." Homeland Security has deemed that returning veterans, tax protesters, and anti-abortion advocates, among others, are "terrorists."
    George W. Bush signed a treaty with Mexico and Canada that allows the U.S. government to call on their troops to quell any public unrest in the United States.
    Once again, the previous president, not this one.

    The government is using pastors in a targeted outreach at churches all across America to teach their congregations that absolute fealty to the American government is "God's will."
    That sounds like something Obama would do.

    ETA: Oh, and it's an advertisement for a book. Very trustworthy. Just this morning I got a letter from a prince in Nigeria...
    Last edited by Priceless; 06-04-2012, 01:42 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • FlagDUDE08
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by Priceless View Post
    Got a source for that? Other than the Tinfoil Hat Brigade?

    But since you A) think Obama is Kenyan and B) think he wants Amercia to fail, you probably don't.
    http://ppjg.me/2009/03/05/sovereignty-hypocrisy/
    http://www.dcjunkies.com/showthread.php?t=7851 (videos included)
    http://www.sodahead.com/united-state...stion-1500035/

    Do I need to do more dirty work to answer your questions, Bear Red?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
    Also, if I recall correctly, didn't Obama threaten martial law if the "stimulus" was not passed?

    I think the Kenyan is well aware of how the economy works, and that he wants America to fail.
    Got a source for that? Other than the Tinfoil Hat Brigade?

    But since you A) think Obama is Kenyan and B) think he wants Amercia to fail, you probably don't.

    Leave a comment:


  • FreshFish
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by amherstblackbear View Post
    I think the ratchet effect is a general pathology that applies to both parties. It's not a Democratic or Republican problem. It's an American political economy problem.
    Totally agree, and it in part reflects the way the budget process works in government vs how the budget process [supposedly] works in the private sector. if you "come in under budget" in the private sector, you are praised and perhaps even get a bonus! in government, no one ever dares "come in under budget" because your baseline for this year's budget is last year's spending; therefore administrators look for ways to use up any money left over before the fiscal year ends.

    One way this thinking is manifested comes when you have a program that is slated to grow at 6% per year, and someone proposes that it grow at 3% per year. that is called a "budget cut" and so Ryan is a heartless granny-killer because he wants Medicare to grow more slowly and Obama is a reckless fool because he wants defense spending to grow more slowly....they still want programs to grow just not quite as fast as they've been growing, yet proponents of those programs wail about spending 'cuts' that are not reductions in any way, shape, or form.

    Just starting a budget by looking at what was spent last year is a bit goofy; most people start a budget process by saying "what are our highest priorities?"

    No one in government seems to want to do any prioritizing at all, by 'compromise' they seem to mean, "you support my spending and I'll support yours" [and we'll set aside how to pay for it, for now]. Say what you want about the TEA party, at least when they call for fiscal rectitude they seem actually to mean it and take it seriously.

    What we really need is some kind of national convention "grand bargain" in which everyone accepts less of something than what they have now. I believe that as long as everyone realized that the sacrifice truly would be shared and spread around to all, they'd buy into it; right now, it is like little children "don't take mine, I don't care where else you get it as long as you leave mine alone." We'll never get anywhere that way.

    This is what Obama promised to do in 2008, and it's what he promised to do when he convened the Simpson-Bowles commission (which gave him the perfect political cover he needed). He failed to follow through on both promises, which is why so many have become disenchanted with him in the meantime.

    Leave a comment:


  • 5mn_Major
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by MinnFan View Post
    The Washing Post has already debunked these numbers. In fact they gave it Three Pinocchios
    Even with making recommended adjustments from 1.4% to 3.3%...the net message is the same. They probably should have retained a couple of pinocchios for themselves for overdramatisation.

    Leave a comment:


  • amherstblackbear
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
    I do agree with you conceptually that 2009 is the fair place to start, if I could just find what the original FY 2009 budget number was before the extra spending was added to it, that would be the number to use.
    I should clarify that I'm playing this game because its popular. I don't think the most important lessons to be learned from this episode will be of the sort:

    crap before X all came from this dude; crap after X all came from that one. I know my horse is dead and beaten, but to beat it again: I think the ratchet effect is a general pathology that applies to both parties. It's not a Democratic or Republican problem. It's an American political economy problem.

    Leave a comment:


  • FlagDUDE08
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by amherstblackbear View Post
    Tell me you wrote this before you saw my last response, or I'll be forced to agree with you.
    I did. I am one of those that has my posts listed with the least recent at the top and most recent at the bottom.

    Leave a comment:


  • amherstblackbear
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
    Someone's not paying attention.
    Tell me you wrote this before you saw my last response, or I'll be forced to agree with you.

    Leave a comment:


  • MinnFan
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by 5mn_Major View Post
    Meant to say the rate is down...

    *****http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/img/hal2010/2012/05/24/Post_2_graph_1.png******
    The Washing Post has already debunked these numbers. In fact they gave it Three Pinocchios

    Leave a comment:


  • FlagDUDE08
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
    I can't find the information right now....FY 2009 started out as a Bush budget and then there were some additional "extraordinary circumstances" expenditures added to the 2009 budget mid-year. So the 2009 spending is partly the budget for 2009 that was passed when Bush was President, with some additional spending thrown on top of it.

    I do agree with you conceptually that 2009 is the fair place to start, if I could just find what the original FY 2009 budget number was before the extra spending was added to it, that would be the number to use.

    Basically Obama himself doesn't really understand how the economy works; some advisors told him if he did the "stimulus" then these "magic multipliers" would take effect, and voila! problem solved. Since they told him what he wanted to hear, he went with their advice (it's never "his fault" you know....) and now doesn't quite know what to say or do about it.
    '
    Romney does, but he's playing not to lose, he's not trying actively to actually win.

    (example: before the Obama Presidency started, there were already 48 Federal job-training programs; now of course there are 49....yet we still hear that the skills that workers have are not the skills that employers want to hire. Several independent Congressional audits of those jobs programs find that they are not very effective, yet each one has a constituency such that we can't get rid of them. Here is a perfect place for someone with Romney's private equity experience to make a big difference, yet he says nothing along those lines.....)
    Also, if I recall correctly, didn't Obama threaten martial law if the "stimulus" was not passed?

    I think the Kenyan is well aware of how the economy works, and that he wants America to fail.

    Leave a comment:


  • FlagDUDE08
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by amherstblackbear View Post
    Whoa - math fail.

    Assuming 2.8% inflation

    3.52T (2009 sepending) in 2010 dollars = 3.52T*1.028 = $3.62T. In 2011 dollars, it is 3.62T*1.028 = $3.72T

    For me to have assumed 23% annual inflation, spending in 2011 would have had to be $5.33T.
    Going from 2982.5 billion to 3603.5 billion. Someone's not paying attention.

    Leave a comment:


  • FreshFish
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by amherstblackbear View Post
    I think 2009 is a fairer cutpoint.

    You see spending skyrocketing under Obama.

    I see a ratchet effect. Temporary spending increases are rarely temporary. You may see a slight decrease, as we've seen over the past couple years, but it's not commensurate with the initial increase. Which is why it's important to really question political calls for "temporary" spending. Those plans are always easier on the front end than on the back. The temporary increase is great. But nobody really wants to be on the hook for the ensuing decrease.
    I can't find the information right now....FY 2009 started out as a Bush budget and then there were some additional "extraordinary circumstances" expenditures added to the 2009 budget mid-year. So the 2009 spending is partly the budget for 2009 that was passed when Bush was President, with some additional spending thrown on top of it.

    I do agree with you conceptually that 2009 is the fair place to start, if I could just find what the original FY 2009 budget number was before the extra spending was added to it, that would be the number to use.

    Basically Obama himself doesn't really understand how the economy works; some advisors told him if he did the "stimulus" then these "magic multipliers" would take effect, and voila! problem solved. Since they told him what he wanted to hear, he went with their advice (it's never "his fault" you know....) and now doesn't quite know what to say or do about it.
    '
    Romney does, but he's playing not to lose, he's not trying actively to actually win.

    (example: before the Obama Presidency started, there were already 48 Federal job-training programs; now of course there are 49....yet we still hear that the skills that workers have are not the skills that employers want to hire. Several independent Congressional audits of those jobs programs find that they are not very effective, yet each one has a constituency such that we can't get rid of them. Here is a perfect place for someone with Romney's private equity experience to make a big difference, yet he says nothing along those lines.....)

    Leave a comment:


  • amherstblackbear
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    OK, I think I understand what you're saying. You want to use 2008 as the initial cutpoint. OK . . . but 2008 significantly reflects budget decisions made in 2007. Bush left office in 2009. There's still a lot of Bush going on, post FY08. I think 2009 is a fairer cutpoint.

    You see spending skyrocketing under Obama.

    I see a ratchet effect. Temporary spending increases are rarely temporary. You may see a slight decrease, as we've seen over the past couple years, but it's not commensurate with the initial increase. Which is why it's important to really question political calls for "temporary" spending. Those plans are always easier on the front end than on the back. The temporary increase is great. But nobody really wants to be on the hook for the ensuing decrease.

    ETA:
    In that respect, Romney is perfectly positioned. The GOP was perfectly complicit with the increase, but was absolved of any responsibility for bringing spending back down. Trust me, they wouldn't have done it, either. This way, they at least get a campaign issue out of it. It sounds great. Though if anyone can misplay that hand, it's probably Romney.
    Last edited by amherstblackbear; 06-04-2012, 11:04 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • amherstblackbear
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
    You seriously believe we've had 23% inflation in 3 years? OK...
    Whoa - math fail.

    Assuming 2.8% inflation

    3.52T (2009 sepending) in 2010 dollars = 3.52T*1.028 = $3.62T. In 2011 dollars, it is 3.62T*1.028 = $3.72T

    For me to have assumed 23% annual inflation, spending in 2011 would have had to be $5.33T.

    Leave a comment:


  • FlagDUDE08
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by amherstblackbear View Post
    Those are some weird years you've chosen. Here's what I'd look at:

    2009: $3.52T (GDP $13.9T)
    2010: $3.46T (GDP $14.5T)
    2011: $3.60T (GDP $15.1T)

    Those are nominal dollars. Controlling for inflation, it's probably accurate to say that spending has decreased since O took office. It's certainly decreased as a percentage of GDP. Are either of those decreases "significant?" Well......
    You seriously believe we've had 23% inflation in 3 years? OK...

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X