Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

[geezer]

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

Two economists in Ohio. A study which has been debunked.

I wasn't referring to the study you were, but this (from your "debunked" link) is hilarious: "But economists, including Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, have raised questions of "cherry picking" and dismissed the study's findings."
haha! Krugman is a stupid failure who's been riding his Obama-like piece of **** Nobel for years while he writes the same brainless column week after week for the New York Times. TERRIBLE source, guaranteed worse than whoever did the study he "debunked" by "raising questions." What an idiot. Krugman.

No, the two-jobs-for-one as far as gov't spending goes is just basic economics. You SHOULD have learned it about 9th or 10th grade. This idiot Krugman is going on about something else altogether. I've never even heard of someone as stupid as Krugman until he showed up. And believe it or not, he's STILL calling for more stimulus spending after the complete disaster of the Obama years and accompanying depression the first stimulus caused.

 

[mookie1995]

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

Just cut fraud and waste...I'm sure that will take care of everything

sure. start with any and every federal "education" expense. department of education is dumb. all education expensing should be local, state at the highest level.

outside of that? test. dumb kids go to mcdonalds training or army grunt training. wars used to be great to keep unemployment low and ne'er do wells out of jails. send them to a fox hole and they could die. billy bragg put it well, "...the sort a war takes away. and when there wasn't a war, he left anyway."

 

[Foxton]

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

No, the two-jobs-for-one as far as gov't spending goes is just basic economics. You SHOULD have learned it about 9th or 10th grade.

This is not a source. You should have learned what a source is long before 9th grade.

 

[Old Pio]

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

sure. start with any and every federal "education" expense. department of education is dumb. all education expensing should be local, state at the highest level.

outside of that? test. dumb kids go to mcdonalds training or army grunt training. wars used to be great to keep unemployment low and ne'er do wells out of jails. send them to a fox hole and they could die. billy bragg put it well, "...the sort a war takes away. and when there wasn't a war, he left anyway."

Most dumbbells (and smug a*sholes) aren't smart enough for our military. They wouldn't last 5 minutes.

 

[pirate]

Just cut fraud and waste...I'm sure that will take care of everything

Just condone fraud and waste because it buys votes

 

[Rimbaud]

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

Most dumbells (and smug a*sholes) aren't smart enough for our military. They wouldn't last 5 minutes.

It's spelled dumbbells.

I believe that correction puts me in the smug a*shole category.

 

[Slap Shot]

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

This is not a source. You should have learned what a source is long before 9th grade.

Don't stop him, he's on a roll.

 

[Old Pio]

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

It's spelled dumbbells.

I believe that correction puts me in the smug a*shole category.

So it is--thank you, and yes it does.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

If Romney were to take a bigger stand on this, he'd probably win the election hands down: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303552104577440342850277660.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

 

[5mn_Major]

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

If Romney were to take a bigger stand on this, he'd probably win the election hands down: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303552104577440342850277660.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

If only it was an accurate picture. We know that the Asia slowdown and European crisis are a major drag with the US doing fine in comparison. And this says nothing about the long term structural challenges we face of overseas increasingly educated, still cheap labor.

We've already seen that the premise for the article of government spending is off...as government spending is down sigificantly. Guess I thought the post was referring to WSJ little sister outlet's big spending recommendation 'Stealth Destroyer a Perfect Fit for New Asia Strategy?'

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

If only it was an accurate picture. We know that the Asia slowdown and European crisis are a major drag with the US doing fine in comparison. And this says nothing about the long term structural challenges we face of overseas increasingly educated, still cheap labor.

We've already seen that the premise for the article of government spending is off...as government spending is down sigificantly. Guess I thought the post was referring to WSJ little sister outlet's big spending recommendation 'Stealth Destroyer a Perfect Fit for New Asia Strategy?'

2006 total spending: $2655.1 billion. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2006_0.html
2008 total spending: $2982.5 billion. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2008_0.html
2011 total spending: $3603.1 billion. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2011_0.html

Yep, that government spending is significantly down.

 

[pirate]

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

If only it was an accurate picture. We know that the Asia slowdown and European crisis are a major drag with the US doing fine in comparison. And this says nothing about the long term structural challenges we face of overseas increasingly educated, still cheap labor.

We've already seen that the premise for the article of government spending is off...as government spending is down sigificantly. Guess I thought the post was referring to WSJ little sister outlet's big spending recommendation 'Stealth Destroyer a Perfect Fit for New Asia Strategy?'

I read that article and thought the first several paragraphs looked to be accurate. I understand somebody disagreeing with the commentary that followed or whether this means jack regarding romney. But it sure seemed like the first half of the picture was accurate.

 

[FreshFish]

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

It seems to me that Romney's winning strategy is to make sure everyone knows he is running for President, so that he does not get sucked into running a campaign against Obama. It is possible that Obama's relentless negative campaigning may start to drag down people's favorable view of Obama*; Romney himself doesn't want to get distracted into that kind of game (of course, as we've seen, he'll green-light surrogates to do that for him!).






* when Obama himself started doing the attacks, rather than delegating them to others, I wondered whether he weren't making a mistake for this very reason; so far the preliminary dtaa seems to indicate that negative campaigning demeans the person doing it as well as the person to whom it is done.

 

[5mn_Major]

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

2006 total spending: $2655.1 billion. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2006_0.html
2008 total spending: $2982.5 billion. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2008_0.html
2011 total spending: $3603.1 billion. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2011_0.html

Yep, that government spending is significantly down.

Meant to say the rate is down...

In terms of the election...unless things really crater, Romney will only win by not being Obama. The left doesn't like him, the right doesn't like him and neither does the average guy.

And in terms of negative campaigning, we'll see if 2008 was a departure or a vacation...the GOP has been particularly harsh going from a Clinton cruxifiction to 'black baby' McCain to 'swiftboating' Kerry. Obama highlighting that Bain's motives were not in fact to create jobs is pretty mild in comparison. And those comments will definitely not be seen in a negative light by most.

 

[amherstblackbear]

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

2006 total spending: $2655.1 billion. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2006_0.html
2008 total spending: $2982.5 billion. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2008_0.html
2011 total spending: $3603.1 billion. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2011_0.html

Yep, that government spending is significantly down.

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......

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

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...

 

[amherstblackbear]

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

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.

 

[amherstblackbear]

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.

 

[FreshFish]

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

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.....)

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

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.