Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Feed the Beast
Having blown to smithereens his late-campaign promise to enact a "net spending cut," President Barack Obama appears set to pulverize an already-undermined vow he repeated as recently as his first presidential speech to Congress: "If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime."
The administration this weekend fanned out its economic heavy hitters on the TV chat shows to float a trial balloon: maybe we'll see some of those new taxes after all.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and National Economic Council Director Larry Summers both sidestepped questions on Obama's intentions about taxes. Geithner said the White House was not ready to rule out a tax hike to lower the federal deficit; Summers said Obama's proposed health care overhaul needs funding from somewhere.
"There is a lot that can happen over time," Summers said, adding that the administration believes "it is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out, no matter what." [...]
"If we want an economy that's going to grow in the future, people have to understand we have to bring those deficits down. And it's going to be difficult, hard for us to do. And the path to that is through health care reform," Geithner said. "We're not at the point yet where we're going to make a judgment about what it's going to take."
So yes, even while the Smart Set tells us that state-budget cutbacks are ruinous during a time of recession (typically without mentioning the good-times spending binge that got us there), the big spenders in Washington are softening the ground for tax hikes...during a recession!
It's shocking that the president has brazenly disregarded his campaign and even presidential promises to not be the kind of tax-and-spend liberal of conservative caricature, but it's not surprising. As Reason repeatedly pointed out in 2008, both Obama and the Democrats writ large came to the cusp of reclaiming Washington by rejecting '90s-style "New Democrat" economic Clintonism. And Obama's double-talk at this point should be no surprise.
|8.3.09 @ 8:56AM|#
As Reason repeatedly pointed out in 2008, both Obama and the Democrats writ large came to the cusp of reclaiming Washington by rejecting '90s-style "New Democrat" economic Clintonism.
Not that that stopped Reason contributors
from voting for him, and many from proclaiming that, in fact,
the rejection of "New Democrat" economics was only rhetorical.
Mike in PA|8.3.09 @ 9:01AM|#
While it may be a little premature, I think this puts another
nail in the coffin of governement health care.
Video of Barack explaining his true
inentions
Add that to Barney Frank and hopefully people will start to wake up
to their alterior motives.
Matt Welch|8.3.09 @ 9:02AM|#
That link goes to a survey that hits non-contributors as well as contributors, and my (admittedly very quick) reading of it doesn't show anyone making that New Democrat/rhetorical econ point. Can you point to a quote?
|8.3.09 @ 9:05AM|#
How can something "shocking" not be "surprising"? I suppose, technically, that you can "expect" to be "shocked," but I always thought that expectation took enough of the sting out of an assault to keep it from being much of a "shock." Not that this makes the assault any easier to bear, in the long term. But at least you are ready for it.
kilroy|8.3.09 @ 9:07AM|#
Does
"I repeat: not one single dime."
have the same power as
"Read my lips: No New Taxes."
in 2010 and 2012?
|8.3.09 @ 9:08AM|#
You see Obama just failed to "calibrate" his words correctly
when he said no one making less than 250K would see a dimes worth
of tax increase. Thats all folks just a recalibration of his words
in the future will clear it all up.
What he meant to say is that everyone making less than 250K would
be paying a minimum of another dime from every dollar you make if
you elect him.
Sorry about the mistake but you still love Obama right, I mean he
is so well spoken and all, reads well and all that neat stuff.
smartass sob|8.3.09 @ 9:12AM|#
"There is a lot that can happen over time," Summers said,
adding that the administration believes "it is never a good idea to
absolutely rule things out, no matter what."
Except when you are attempting to get people to vote for your sorry
lying ass.
|8.3.09 @ 9:13AM|#
kilroy, one can only hope so. That is exactly the 1st thing that
came to my mind was how that single line doomed Bush and should do
the same to Obama. Plus take into account Bush raised taxes with
Congress controlled by Dems. Obama will do it with all Dems in
control as well.
The new 3 branches of government Take, Spend and Give.
|8.3.09 @ 9:13AM|#
He didn't lie at all. Not one dime means just that, not one. "Many many dimes will be stolen from you to pay for the benefits of those that voted for me."
|8.3.09 @ 9:14AM|#
The Democratic left spent from 1980 until 2006 in the
wilderness. During that time they just talked to themselves and
forgot or refused to learn any of the lessons of the late 1970s.
These people honeslty believe that high taxes, high regulation and
unionism is the key to prosperity. They don't see those things as
any kind of a drag on the economy.
When sane people see a recession, they think, we need to cut taxes
and regulation to let the economy grow. When leftist see a
recession they think it happened because taxes were not high
enough, the economy was not fully regulated and unions were not
there to protect workers. They are like medieval doctors practicing
with leeches.
Fluffy|8.3.09 @ 9:15AM|#
I hate Obama and all, for his many lies regarding transparency,
and the rule of law, and war on terror policy. And I oppose the
health care plan [whatever it is today] and his stimulus
plans.
But I'm not all that outraged about this, because deficit control
was always going to require either new taxes or spending cuts. And
I don't really expect the Democrats to cut any spending, since when
the Republicans had the Presidency and both houses of Congress they
didn't cut any spending. So if nobody is going to cut any spending,
what does that leave?
Xeones|8.3.09 @ 9:16AM|#
John, the thing is, leeches actually can provide a medical benefit when swelling and clots are issues. Comparing them to tax-hikin' Democrats is really unfair to the leeches.
Xeones|8.3.09 @ 9:17AM|#
Fluffy, i for one am not surprised by this, for the reasons you list. But i am still outraged.
|8.3.09 @ 9:20AM|#
"But I'm not all that outraged about this, because deficit
control was always going to require either new taxes or spending
cuts. And I don't really expect the Democrats to cut any spending,
since when the Republicans had the Presidency and both houses of
Congress they didn't cut any spending. So if nobody is going to cut
any spending, what does that leave?"
But the taxes are going to further tank the economy and reduce
revenue. If we are not at the top of the Laffer Curve we are pretty
close. I think the Clinton tax rates were probably about the top of
Laffer Curve. We are going to go back to them by default. Then,
McHopey is going to throw taxes and regulation on top of that in
the middle of a recession. I don't think taxes are going to solve
the budget deficit. And actually, they will cut spending eventually
just like California is doing. But they will only do it when the
bond markets force them to do so, which isn't that far away.
|8.3.09 @ 9:20AM|#
"John, the thing is, leeches actually can provide a medical
benefit when swelling and clots are issues. Comparing them to
tax-hikin' Democrats is really unfair to the leeches."
True enough.
|8.3.09 @ 9:28AM|#
I thought that Obama was a rerun of Jimmy Carter, but now it
looks like he's going more for a Bush Sr. approach.
Anyone want to take bets on when he says "read my lips"?
-jcr
|8.3.09 @ 9:37AM|#
Of course, his plan may just be to inflate us all into the
$250K+ category in the next year or so.
-jcr
Michael|8.3.09 @ 9:39AM|#
I would like to take this opportunity to point out in a somewhat smug and self-satisfied manner that I didn't vote for this guy. I also wish to point out that by taking said opportunity at present time I am in no way relinquishing my privilege to continually do so for the next three-and-a-half years.
Brett Stevens|8.3.09 @ 9:39AM|#
Why are we surprised that a race-baiting leftist ideologue from
a corrupt district is going to lie?
This was obvious long before November '08.
|8.3.09 @ 9:39AM|#
IMHO, the writers of the constitution screwed up by not
requiring a 2/3 vote AND a declaration of war before allowing the
federal government to borrow money.
-jcr
|8.3.09 @ 9:41AM|#
I would like to take this opportunity to point out in a
somewhat smug and self-satisfied manner that I didn't vote for this
guy
Did you write in Ron Paul?
-jcr
Fluffy|8.3.09 @ 9:41AM|#
If we are not at the top of the Laffer Curve we are pretty
close. I think the Clinton tax rates were probably about the top of
Laffer Curve. We are going to go back to them by
default.
If the Clinton rates were the top of the Laffer Curve, then we
should have seen no increase in revenues when the rates became
effective.
Your argument here is pretty Keynesian, John. Are you a Keynesian
all of a sudden? Are you arguing that we shouldn't try to close the
deficit right now, because we need to deficit spend to offset the
recession? That's the straight John Maynard mainline right
there.
Fluffy|8.3.09 @ 9:43AM|#
Of course, that question is pretty theoretical, since Obama's
not actually going to try to reduce the deficit.
This whole thread is pretty theoretical, actually.
It's all very discouraging.
T|8.3.09 @ 9:44AM|#
Obama is really working hard to make his presidency of the
single-term variety.
That's what I keep thinking. But then I thought McCain wouldn't get
the GOP nomination last year, so obviously my crystal ball needs
work.
KingShamus|8.3.09 @ 9:47AM|#
James Ard | August 3, 2009, 9:41am | #
Anyone who really believed Obama when he said it should be
committed immediatly.
-----------------------
Apparently around 52% of people were convinced or convinced
themselves that Obambi was telling the truth about tax
increases.
Just sayin'.
Mike in PA|8.3.09 @ 9:47AM|#
Obama is really working hard to make his presidency of the
single-term variety.
I think he's counting on short-term memories by the time 2012 comes
up. Judging from history, I'd say that's a pretty shrewd
calculation.
|8.3.09 @ 9:49AM|#
This is not really an issue I'd fight to the death over, but I
think a lot of you guys grossly overestimate the destructive power
of Carter; he actually had some rational ideas (however awkwardly
he presented them), but was steamrollered by his own party in
Congress on them.
And- to be honest, small tax increases at the margin are not likely
to tank the economy; the idiotic social engineering projects the
money gets tied to (Cap 'n Trade, Cash for Clunkers, anyone?)
will.
|8.3.09 @ 9:53AM|#
KingShamus, I think most Obama voters knew he was lying, and also want tax increases on everybody making over $75,000 a year.
T|8.3.09 @ 9:54AM|#
And- to be honest, small tax increases at the margin are not
likely to tank the economy; the idiotic social engineering projects
the money gets tied to (Cap 'n Trade, Cash for Clunkers, anyone?)
will.
I don't think anyone here is arguing the tax increases will tank
the economy. I will argue increasing taxes in the middle of a
recession just lengthens the recession and delays recovery. That,
combined with the idiocy of the spending, will drag the recession
out far longer than necessary.
matt2|8.3.09 @ 9:54AM|#
So if nobody is going to cut any spending, what does that leave?
All of those printing presses are there for a reason.
|8.3.09 @ 9:54AM|#
Its our fault Obama had no choice but to lie to us about taxes. If we had been socially conscious enough to acknowledge the wonderfulness of govt, instead of clinging to our anti-tax fetishes, Obama wouldn't have had to lie to us to get us to do the right thing. Damn you all, forcing The Last Honest Man On Earth to do something dishonest, for your own good. :-)
|8.3.09 @ 10:04AM|#
I will argue increasing taxes in the middle of a recession
just lengthens the recession and delays recovery.
I'm really not trying to dispute this, but my feeling is, if we
raised taxes and tied the revenue specifically to debt
reduction (I have previously admitted to living in a fantasy
world), the effect on expectations would probably lead to an
*improvement* in the economy.
|8.3.09 @ 10:08AM|#
As far as I can tell, these were the endorsements from the
linked article in 2008:
The parentheticals are me trying to read the tea-leaves of certain
people's answers. There were a couple of joke answers (Kauffman and
Shermer) that I interpreted what they meant.
The half point votes are for the answers that amounted to "anyone
but _________." I gave half a point to the other two vote receiving
candidates in that situation.
Total
Obama - 14.5 (15)
Barr - 14 (13.5)
None - 8 (7)
McCain - 5.5 (6.5)
Contributors
Barr - 8.5 (8)
Obama - 6.5 (8)
None - 6 (4)
McCain - 0 (1)
Stormy Dragon|8.3.09 @ 10:09AM|#
HAving chosen to vastly inflate spending, whether or not Obama wants to keep his promise is irrelevant. The only real question is if the government is going to be taking more of your money visibly through taxes or invisibly through devaluing the dollar.
|8.3.09 @ 10:11AM|#
What exactly are you bitching about? The $250,000 threshold for
new taxes is something he's been consistent on since well before
his inauguration. Are you gonna keep whining about the deficit too?
How do you propose to mitigate that without tax revenue?
I agree that raising taxes on the middle class would be a bad idea
in any circumstance, especially a recession. But surely an increase
on the wealthiest (which won't have a counter-stimulative effect)
is preferable to more Chinese debt?
T|8.3.09 @ 10:15AM|#
Are you gonna keep whining about the deficit too? How do you
propose to mitigate that without tax revenue?
Cut spending? A radical idea, I know, but maybe it's time to try
something different.
|8.3.09 @ 10:17AM|#
Cut spending? A radical idea,
No, that would be _actual_ change, and we can't have that.
Spoonman|8.3.09 @ 10:21AM|#
The $250,000 threshold for new taxes is something he's been consistent on since well before his inauguration.
*whoosh*
|8.3.09 @ 10:22AM|#
my (admittedly very quick) reading of it doesn't show anyone making that New Democrat/rhetorical econ point. Can you point to a quote?
Try Steve Chapman:
Barack Obama... 2) because he shows an intelligence and temperament that suggest he will govern more pragmatically than ideologically-the best that can be hoped for from a Democratic president.
I think that this one at least counts.
Among non-contributors, there's of course Craig Newmark:
Barack Obama, since he's a genuine leader, with a good program for cleaning up Washington, and will be very good for business.
But perhaps "will be very good for business" doesn't mean anything
about being Clinton-like or supporting trade.
And pretty much anyone else who kept mentioning how Obama was
"pragmatic" (non-contributor John Scalzi) and not ideological, with
a better temperament to me comes off as saying that Obama would
govern in a moderate fashion.
|8.3.09 @ 10:26AM|#
It's shocking that the president has brazenly disregarded his campaign and even presidential promises to not be the kind of tax-and-spend liberal of conservative caricature, but it's not surprising.
It's surprising to about half the contributors and others in that
article. I suppose that the contributors, on the whole, were more
skeptical than those just interviewed.
No objection to those who voted for Obama but specifically said it
was only for Drugs, civil liberties (I can be more cynical than
them for other reasons, but it's more plausible than economics),
and especially those that admitted he might be terrible on markets
(but blamed the voters, understandably) like Steven Pinker.
|8.3.09 @ 10:29AM|#
What exactly are you bitching about? The $250,000 threshold for new taxes is something he's been consistent on since well before his inauguration.
Umm. Did you read the post? Talk about missing the point.
Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, like Joe Biden before them, are
backing away from the $250k threshold. Understandably, because it's
absolutely impossible to keep with Obama's extra
spending. It was sort of possible to keep the pledge
without the stimulus, without more TARP money, more auto bailouts,
and without health insurance expansion that's actually very bad for
the deficit. And with some spending cuts too.
With his actual proposed budget, it's physically impossible to
close the deficit even to Bushian levels with taxes only on those
making over $250k without tax rates over 100%.
|8.3.09 @ 10:32AM|#
IRS data shows that in 2007-the most recent data
available-the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the
total income taxes collected by the federal government. This is the
highest percentage in modern history. By contrast, the top 1
percent paid 24.8 percent of the income tax burden in 1987, the
year following the 1986 tax reform act. Remarkably, the share of
the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now exceeds the share
paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined.
Via
Greg Manikiw
smartass sob|8.3.09 @ 10:33AM|#
The only real question is if the government is going to be
taking more of your money visibly through taxes or invisibly
through devaluing the dollar.
It will be doing both, just as it has for the last ninety-odd
years.
|8.3.09 @ 10:37AM|#
the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent
now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers
combined.
But we can get them to pay for *everything*, right Tony?
|8.3.09 @ 10:41AM|#
All we have to do to balance the federal budget is cut it back
to where it was allll the way back in . . . . 2005.
Clearly, this kind of draconian cutting will lead to social chaos,
people starving in the streets, etc.
Only crazy people would even consider balancing the budget with
spending cuts.
|8.3.09 @ 10:51AM|#
Clearly, this kind of draconian cutting will lead to social
chaos, people starving in the streets, etc.
The Republicans were in charge, so that budget is evil. We should
use the last budget where the Dems held both houses of Congress and
the Presidency, because that is when compassion ruled. What were we
spending in 1994?
|8.3.09 @ 10:53AM|#
Only crazy people would even consider balancing the budget
with spending cuts.
You can't get re-elected by cutting welfare for the middle class,
you silly person.
|8.3.09 @ 10:55AM|#
Obama reasserted the threshold after Summers's and Geithner's remarks, did he not? I don't see any promise being broken in these comments, only a talking point about nothing being ruled out since circumstances will determine policies with regard to the deficit.
|8.3.09 @ 10:57AM|#
I will even support going to an inflation-adjusted 1994
budget
I'd even adjust for population growth. Remember, Clinton was
elected because Bush the Elder totally trashed the economy with his
voodoo economics and people were starving in the streets and we
were all going to die, so Clinton's spending should be appropriate
now.
|8.3.09 @ 11:06AM|#
"Your argument here is pretty Keynesian, John. Are you a
Keynesian all of a sudden? Are you arguing that we shouldn't try to
close the deficit right now, because we need to deficit spend to
offset the recession? That's the straight John Maynard mainline
right there."
There is nothing uniquely Keynesian to say that marginal taxes and
business regulation affect incentives and economic performance. It
is true that even Keynes would admit that raising taxes during a
recession is a really bad idea. But, so would pretty much every
other school of economic thought.
The recipe for economic success at this point is well known and
pretty simple; low taxes, small government, and low regulation
combined with a strong rule of law and protection of property
rights and political stability. The further you stray from that
ideal, the worse off you are in the long run. If that is John
Maynard, then I am guilty as charged.
|8.3.09 @ 11:10AM|#
Didn't Keynes say for govt to save in good times and spend in
bad times? I've always wondered (actually, I haven't) why only the
latter is mentioned by "Keynesians".
Where were Krugman's calls for lower spending and govt saving when
tax receipts were going up?
|8.3.09 @ 11:15AM|#
The recipe for economic success at this point is well known and pretty simple; low taxes, small government, and low regulation
Well known, meaning believed by only a fringe, and completely
belied by history?
Rich|8.3.09 @ 11:18AM|#
Of course, his plan may just be to inflate us all into the
$250K+ category in the next year or so.
Factoring in the soon-to-be-acquired health benefits, no need to
inflate.
I think he's counting on short-term memories by the time 2012
comes up. Judging from history, I'd say that's a pretty shrewd
calculation.
Maybe. A lot of folks have increasingly good memories, and it ain't
from taking ginkgo biloba.
Are you gonna keep whining about the deficit too?
Yep.
|8.3.09 @ 11:18AM|#
"Well known, meaning believed by only a fringe, and completely
belied by history?"
Yes because high union, high tax states like New Jersey and
Michigan have done so well. Detroit was the greatest industrial
city in history 50 years ago thanks to small goverment. Fifty years
later thanks to people like you running the place, it is now a
third world ghost town. Labor Brittian of the 60s and 70s was
another fabulous success for your side.
Tony is a good example of what I am talking about. The hard left
was in the wilderness so long and became so inbred that they have
forgotten every lesson of the 1970s. What is worse they are so
stupid they don't even understand what they don't know. Reality is
going to be a hard teacher for them. It is just too bad the rest of
us have to suffer while Tony and his ilk go to real world economics
school.
|8.3.09 @ 11:20AM|#
"Didn't Keynes say for govt to save in good times and spend in
bad times? I've always wondered (actually, I haven't) why only the
latter is mentioned by "Keynesians"."
Yes he did. He also admitted in his later life that government
construction projects were a really inefficient way to stimulate
the economy. There is a famous story about him meeting with
officials of the FDR administration and walking out saying
"everyone there was a Keynesian but me." Nitwits like Tony don't
even know what Keynesian economics is. They just use the name like
a small child clinging to a security blanket.
creech|8.3.09 @ 11:23AM|#
This morning's spin from my pro-Obama colleagues is that Obama would have kept to his campaign promise but that GW Bush left such an economic mess that he is forced to break his promise. Blame Bush first, last and always.
JB|8.3.09 @ 11:26AM|#
http://www.reason.com/news/show/129640.html
"1. Who are you voting for in November? Barack Obama. All my life
I've been waiting for a black president; Obama's not monumentally
unqualified, and his solid-if-boring book at least had some unkind
words for teachers unions. Also my kids like him."
I hope that was sarcasm from Cavanaugh.
Seriously, it's almost hard to believe how much reason was all over
Obama's cock before the election.
I voted for McCain as a way to metaphorically punch every
Obama-zombie in the head and in the vagina. I saw the train-wreck
that is Obama well ahead of the election. I was never going to vote
for a Republican or Democrat again, but I couldn't resist punching
Obama-zombies.
|8.3.09 @ 11:26AM|#
creech,
That will be the 2012 campaign theme for BO as he campaigns in an
environment of near 0 growth 10% UE and inflation; Bush made such a
mess it is not my fault I fucked it up more.
|8.3.09 @ 11:27AM|#
JB,
Whenever Cavanaugh posts on here it ought to be under the moniker
"Obama voter Tim Cavanaugh". He bought that badge, he ought to have
to wear it.
JB|8.3.09 @ 11:27AM|#
Well known, meaning believed by only a fringe, and
completely belied by history?
Tony, why don't you go find Stalin's corpse and suck on the pelvic
bone while saying "regulate me more bitch, regulate me more!"
|8.3.09 @ 11:28AM|#
I suspect that the Blame Bush meme is past its sell-by
date.
Obama, having seen his mystique evaporate over health care reform,
has nothing left to trade on in trying to get a big tax bill
passed.
I would say he is looking like a one-termer, but there is no
telling what kind of corpse/idiot the Repubs will put up against
him, and I don't see the Repubs being replaced by a third party
anytime soon.
The Angry Optimist|8.3.09 @ 11:29AM|#
Fluffy, John, you two are talking past each other. Fluffy should
not have accused John of being Keynesian, because John was talking
as if spending cuts were a realistic option.
John, the post to which you responded discounted the idea that
spending cuts are achievable.
Now that that is settled, John - assume that it is true that
spending cuts cannot happen. Would you support a tax
increase?
I support both - and I want taxes increased on the poor,
too. They pay very little tax (and FICA does not count because that
it for specific programs).
|8.3.09 @ 11:32AM|#
Didn't Keynes say for govt to save in good times and spend in bad times? I've always wondered (actually, I haven't) why only the latter is mentioned by "Keynesians".
Herein lies the fatal flaw of Keynesianism.
There is always some politically favored group whose "economy" is
in crisis and needs stimulus.
And there will always be a Tip O'Neil or Ted Kennedy to challenge a
Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan over "budget cuts". Of course, it
doesn't help if the president is only half-heartedly trying to make
those "cuts".
I have come to the conclusion that it hardly matters who the
President is. What we need is more frugal Congresspersons and I
don't see too many of them out there among either incumbents or
challengers.
But then, I don't see much demand for such among the electorate,
either.
JB|8.3.09 @ 11:36AM|#
I would love to see these start going up all over the
country:
http://www.cafepress.com/cpshirts.400535202
Considering the damage the madman Obama is doing to the country,
I'd say the make-up fits. Who needs Al Queda when we have joker
Obama?
|8.3.09 @ 11:41AM|#
I have only one question in my mind that will decide if he is a
1 or a 2 term president. Can Obama convince enough people that the
economy was so bad and that the republicans have stood in the way
so much that it will take longer and even the regular folks are
gonna have to help out to save the world. If everyone gets "health
care" and its economic effects don't start before 2012 and the
stimulus starts providing jobs, he will be golden.
Don't misunderestimate the willingness of the sheeple to believe in
a saviour. It is much easier than actually, you know, doing
something ourselves.
|8.3.09 @ 11:41AM|#
The short-term memory that voters tend to have cuts both ways: when Obama attempts to blame Bush in 2012, people are going to scratch their heads and ask "Bush who?" as they vote for the candidate who isn't Obama.
robc|8.3.09 @ 11:44AM|#
FICA does not count because that it for specific
programs
SCOTUS disagrees with you.
Not that that makes you wrong.
Fluffy|8.3.09 @ 11:45AM|#
Fluffy, John, you two are talking past each other. Fluffy
should not have accused John of being Keynesian, because John was
talking as if spending cuts were a realistic option.
Yeah, we may have been talking past each other.
Basically, I was accusing him of saying, "We have to keep the
deficit high because that will help the economy which is now in
recession."
What he was really saying was, "I don't care if the deficit is high
or low, we can't raise taxes because raising taxes will worsen the
recession."
Although in practical terms these are the same statement in 2009,
the first statement is unabashedly Keynesian while the second
statement is not necessarily unabashedly Keynesian. [The second
statement has Keynesian elements to it, but there are non-Keynesian
reasons one could have to make the statement.]
Fluffy|8.3.09 @ 11:48AM|#
The short-term memory that voters tend to have cuts both
ways: when Obama attempts to blame Bush in 2012, people are going
to scratch their heads and ask "Bush who?" as they vote for the
candidate who isn't Obama.
Unfortunately, even with Obama undermining the economy, the economy
is likely to come back by 2012.
So the voters will probably say, "Oh thank you Obama for saving the
economy!" even if he had nothing to do with it.
That's the real problem: even diluted capitalism is so productive
that eventually it grows. People perceive it growing, and perceive
the political class standing up shouting that it's growing because
of all the policies the political class initiated, and they nod
their heads and say, "Thank you, oh benevolent political
class!"
|8.3.09 @ 11:51AM|#
Fluffy, they have to strike a careful balance to take out the max they can and still leave growth above 0%, so they can take credit for it. Kinda like a parasite not wanting to kill its host.
hmm|8.3.09 @ 11:53AM|#
The unicorn pee leaked into Reason's coffee pot. That's what
caused the momentary lapse of rationale thought and a belief in a
campaigning politicians rhetoric.
The best line in the entire Q&A article.
Barack Obama. All my life I've been waiting for a black president;
Excellent reason for choosing a candidate.
I don't think at this point anyone who voted for Obama is surprised
about a tax increase on everyone. Half will rationalize it as doing
their part (with the aid of Joe) and the rest will realize they
fucked up.
hmm|8.3.09 @ 11:55AM|#
Unfortunately, even with Obama undermining the economy, the economy is likely to come back by 2012.
Unfortunately he is correct. The business cycle will recover, it is
far more resilient than even government. The people are so
preoccupied with American Idol and McBurgers they won't realize it
wasn't Obama.
|8.3.09 @ 11:55AM|#
Unfortunately, even with Obama undermining the economy, the
economy is likely to come back by 2012.
We could be into the second dip of a double-dip recession by then.
I still think this is a sucker's rally we are having now. I keep
asking "Where are the fundamentals?" and all I hear is crickets. Or
maybe that's the far-off sound of Wall Street going
"Ka-Ching!".
|8.3.09 @ 11:55AM|#
Kinda like a parasite not wanting to kill its
host.
...you know, like a tapeworm that crawls out of your butt every
morning to demand you thank it for your still being alive, then
crawling back in to continue feeding.
|8.3.09 @ 11:58AM|#
I still think this is a sucker's rally we are having now. I
keep asking "Where are the fundamentals?"
I bought my first oz of gold over the weekend. Weird how small it
is, and to think it used to represent, what, $32?
Private money is to US government money what US government money is
to Zimbabwean money.
The Angry Optimist|8.3.09 @ 12:03PM|#
The people are so preoccupied with American Idol and McBurgers they won't realize it wasn't Obama.
I am sorry, but remove your nose and your tortoise-shell glasses
from your Macbook, you ignorant hipster.
Sorry if you aren't actually a hipster, but I figured you
wouldn't mind since you rushed to stereotype as well.
hmm|8.3.09 @ 12:08PM|#
The comment was a generalization about how people tend to be
self centered and not actually pay attention to the cause of many
things. People still thing FDR got us out of the GD.
Clearly a generalization encompassing all of humanity is serious
and not without fault.
|8.3.09 @ 12:13PM|#
As some have indicated here and in past threads, Obama and the Dems can do pretty much anything they want since the Reps are unprincipled (witness the Bush years, which is not a cliche but rather a warning and bad memory to the majority of the American public) as well as unhinged (witness their present focus on calling Obama a racist and being Birther fruitcakes instead of acting like a mature and grown up opposition party). So, if the economy has improved (as it already is, as seen by Ford's improved sales numbers and a Dow that is over 9200) and stays improved in 2012, nothing will stop Obama and the Dems from increasing their hold on power. It is like a varsity team playing a junior varsity team at this point. Only when the Republicans grow up and start focusing on not just talking issues again but believing in their positions on those issues again will the Dem juggernaut be halted.
|8.3.09 @ 12:15PM|#
If Spending cuts cannot happen, then I would support eating the
deficit. At the very least, there needs to be a spending freeze.
Keep spending as it is, then cut taxes and regulation and get the
economy moving. Once that happens, hold the line on spending and
the growth in revenue eliminates the deficit. That is pretty much
what happened in the late 1990s. Congress and the President being
divided couldn't agree on any new grandiose plans. At the same
time, they cut the captial gains tax in 1995. So, spending rose at
a slower rate than the economy. We ended up with a surplus. You
could do the same again now.
To me the real indefensible blunder that Obama committed was the
stimulus. If he hadn't blown $700 billion dollars on useless crap,
spending wouldn't be as big of a problem. Without the stimulus, he
could have agreed to make the Bush tax cuts perminant, held
spending where it was, and come out on the otheside of the
recession with a surplus and a booming economy. Instead, he let
Pelosi and Reid steal $700 billion and rob him of any
flexibility.
|8.3.09 @ 12:18PM|#
"So, if the economy has improved (as it already is, as seen by
Ford's improved sales numbers and a Dow that is over 9200) and
stays improved in 2012, nothing will stop Obama and the Dems from
increasing their hold on power. It is like a varsity team playing a
junior varsity team at this point. Only when the Republicans grow
up and start focusing on not just talking issues again but
believing in their positions on those issues again will the Dem
juggernaut be halted."
If the econmy really does improve, I don't really care if the Dems
are in power. Sadly I don't think it is going to. We are not going
to contract forever for sure, but the "recovery" when it does
happen will be slow (under 2% growth) and jobless (over 9% UE).
And, thanks to Treasury printing money to finance the deficit, will
come with inflation. So whatever recovery we get will have to be
wiped out by the recession that ensues when the fed raises rates to
combat inflation.
|8.3.09 @ 12:21PM|#
If the economy improves, a lot of you guys should be eating a lot of crow. I'll not hold my breath.
hmm|8.3.09 @ 12:23PM|#
As some have indicated here and in past threads, Obama and the Dems can do pretty much anything they want since the Reps are unprincipled (witness the Bush years, which is not a cliche but rather a warning and bad memory to the majority of the American public) as well as unhinged (witness their present focus on calling Obama a racist and being Birther fruitcakes instead of acting like a mature and grown up opposition party). So, if the economy has improved (as it already is, as seen by Ford's improved sales numbers and a Dow that is over 9200) and stays improved in 2012, nothing will stop Obama and the Dems from increasing their hold on power. It is like a varsity team playing a junior varsity team at this point. Only when the Republicans grow up and start focusing on not just talking issues again but believing in their positions on those issues again will the Dem juggernaut be halted.
Since the economy (made up of more than the Dow and Ford) is
technically still declining (see GDP a more accurate measure of the
economy than a car company and an exchange) I'm going to have to
question your political forecasting. The birther fruitcake model
and racist model are talking points (straight from the Center for
American Progress). While you probable read the points on other
sites (DailyKOS or any other left leaning site) the points are part
of left rhetoric. Your points on the Republican party do have some
truth (they are unhinged and running around like blind mice after
selling their morals to GWB), but your belief that the Democratic
party has some sort of juggernaut that is unstoppable is laughable.
They are shooting themselves in the foot (see tax increase, broken
promises, failed programs, decreasing GDP, growing unemployment,
the litany of contradictions like no lobbyists in the
administration) over and over.
|8.3.09 @ 12:28PM|#
If the economy improves, a lot of you guys should be eating
a lot of crow.
When the economy improves (and it will), it will be despite, rather
than because of, the Ascended One's "help".
hmm|8.3.09 @ 12:28PM|#
If the economy improves, a lot of you guys should be eating a lot of crow. I'll not hold my breath.
I haven't seen anyone outright say the economy won't improve.
Without a time frame for reference you are using a bit of the often
used political asshattery of "see it recovered/worked" eventually.
Many think this is a two hump rally, or recession, depending on how
you look at it. But I don't think anyone who believes in the free
market doesn't think the economy will recover. Just the opposite.
It might take some time but the business cycle is greater than even
the mighty Obama.
|8.3.09 @ 12:31PM|#
hmmm, do you believe that the economy will be on the upswing by 2011-2012? The average voter doesn't pay attention to gdp and such. If the economy is looking good at a shallow glance, and jobs are coming back, Obama wins. Remember, history is written by the victor. Presidents get the kudos or the blame for what happens while they are in office. Bush is still blamed for the economy because it went under during his administration. Obama, likewise, will get the credit if the economy improves during his.
Mike M.|8.3.09 @ 12:31PM|#
Unfortunately, even with Obama undermining the economy, the
economy is likely to come back by 2012.
If this insane "Cap and Trade" carbon credit swapping B.S. actually
becomes law, the economic "comeback" won't be like any comeback
we've ever seen in this country before. Mark my words, this thing
is going to be the mother of all business killers in this country
(and the cynical part of me suspects that may well be the
intent).
And by the way, that monstrosity will be a de facto tax increase on
every person in America who isn't homeless or voluntarily living
without electricity or running water.
|8.3.09 @ 12:32PM|#
Of course I'm talking to all of you who predicted certain doom because of the government's intervention. It's no use pointing out actual numbers, because whatever happens, anything good is the result of the free market, and anything bad is the result of government, period. How convenient that you can't possibly be wrong about anything.
|8.3.09 @ 12:41PM|#
I hate to even ask, but, is the headline a reference to Grey's Anatomy in the episodes where Izzy was screwin Alex?
Jordan|8.3.09 @ 12:44PM|#
Of course I'm talking to all of you who predicted certain doom because of the government's intervention.
Strawmen sure do listen well, don't they? Please tell us who
predicted that the economy wouldn't recover? The assertion was and
always has been that the recovery will be slower and weaker because
of government intervention. Also, propping up zombie businesses and
racking up insane levels of debt will just push the real day of
reckoning a little further down the road, when the meltdown will
make this one look like child's play.
hmm|8.3.09 @ 12:50PM|#
hmmm, do you believe that the economy will be on the upswing
by 2011-2012?
I think there is more to the question than the economy just being
on an "upswing." People, as seen in a few posts here, watch just
the Dow or the talking heads. Which means the economy might be
tanking while some popular public indicators, whether valid or not,
are looking great. The other problem comes with how the talking
heads spin what happens. If in 3 years things are better the metric
will surely be the worst year. If things are worse the metric will
be the best year between now and then. We are seeing just that
right now. The GDP is getting better!!! When in reality is just not
falling as fast as expected, never mind recalculating previous
quarters. I'm not a doomsday end of market or economy person,
things will get better sooner or later. The worst case scenarios
are ugly, but hey sometimes you need a good asskicking instead of
the $200. The other scenarios all vary in degrees of swollen
genitalia from swift application of feet.
So, really who knows. It will be spun a million different ways. The
hardest part will be wading through the bullshit to figure it
out.
I am wondering what Soros is doing. He's been quite lately and his
history of monetary system hijacking coupled with his current
ability to influence politics is troublesome. Not to mention more
than one of his cohorts has moved all or most of their assets into
China. I wonder if the rats are leaving the ship. (but that's just
the black helicopter, clowns are going to eat me, tinfoil hat part
of me sneaking out)
ap|8.3.09 @ 12:52PM|#
Of course I'm talking to all of you who predicted certain doom
because of the government's intervention. It's no use pointing out
actual numbers, because whatever happens, anything good is the
result of the free market, and anything bad is the result of
government, period. How convenient that you can't possibly be wrong
about anything.
funny, same thing happens with people like you. bad happens, its
the market. good happens, its the government. but while
non-sequitors are fun, you still have nothing on the point of the
post, which is that Obama is on his way to reversing his campaign
promises...after all the "tea-baggers" were told by the compliant
media that they were insane and racists and that obama was going to
lower taxes.
so, please, STFU or offer something useful.
wingnutx|8.3.09 @ 1:00PM|#
Who are you voting for in November? Barack
Obama, since he's a genuine leader, with a good program for
cleaning up Washington, and will be very good for
business.
Oh good lord.
Craig
Newmark, lean forward and choke yourself.
|8.3.09 @ 1:06PM|#
Craig Newmark, lean forward and choke yourself.
And no doing it Carradine-style; you aren't allowed to enjoy
it.
|8.3.09 @ 1:10PM|#
Nobody has said taxes are going to go up on the middle class. No promises have been broken. Furthermore, even if they had to break a promise, who cares? If taxes need to go up, that's not the end of the world and it's certainly not enough to justify the insane ranting of teabaggers who predict Stalinism. If taxes can go down they can go up, GOP axioms to the contrary. As of now the only people who have proposed increased taxes on the middle class are the health care reform moderates and conservatives who want to tax benefits, something Obama opposes.
|8.3.09 @ 1:10PM|#
Considering that a large part of Craig's list business comes from whores and gay men looking to hook up, maybe Newmark had talked to Barney Frank and Elliot Spitzer and been told Obama would be good for his business.
hmm|8.3.09 @ 1:37PM|#
To be fair to that survey Q&A. Hindsight is 20/20. But god some of that is just oozing with unicorn urine and rainbow shit.
nj|8.3.09 @ 1:46PM|#
We will see some sort of recovery by 2012, no matter what congress does. If it doesn't we are so fucked.
Meta4|8.3.09 @ 1:48PM|#
"How do you propose to mitigate that without tax revenue?"
We could sell your organs.
Meta4|8.3.09 @ 1:51PM|#
"Umm. Did you read the post? Talk about missing the
point."
As in: thinking with one's Tony?
|8.3.09 @ 1:54PM|#
toni - where da ya buy yer crack? it's especially
effective!
or are you just high on the Pope of Hope?
why dont you read up on the first depression after the great
war...
|8.3.09 @ 1:56PM|#
"Keep believing, Tony.
It's cute.
Seriously."
Let's all put on our Tony hats and sing about rainbow
kittens!
BTW, shut the fuck up, Tony.
The Angry Optimist|8.3.09 @ 2:02PM|#
Tony - taxing "benefits" is a corporate tax. you should love it!
|8.3.09 @ 2:02PM|#
If the economy is looking good at a shallow glance, and jobs
are coming back, Obama wins.
Maybe. It will help, but even if we are in some kind of recovery,
double-digit inflation could well doom him, especially if its
coupled with a big tax increase on his watch.
And lets not forget that he hasn't had to deal with anything of
much significance in foreign policy yet. The early signs are that
this is not a particularly ept administration on that front, so I'm
not terribly optimistic.
|8.3.09 @ 2:05PM|#
"That's the real problem: even diluted capitalism is so
productive that eventually it grows."
It didn't for Carter.
|8.3.09 @ 2:13PM|#
"as well as unhinged (witness their present focus on calling
Obama a racist and being Birther fruitcakes instead of acting like
a mature and grown up opposition party)."
You know who is unhinged? That fat fuck Ed Schultz of "The Ed
Show". Last week this propaganda tool threw up a graphic that said
58% of republicans believe Obama was born somewhere other than in
the United States. That's just total bullshit given that the poll
numbers were actually 28%, and even the I find questionable. He
claimed the poll was legit as opposed to self-selecting
polls.
If I could castrate one human, it would likely be him.
|8.3.09 @ 2:26PM|#
""I am wondering what Soros is doing."
In times of termoil he falls back on his childhood skill of looting
the homes of disappeared Jews:
KROFT: (Voiceover) You're a Hungarian Jew…
Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm.
KROFT: (Voiceover) …who escaped the Holocaust…
(Vintage footage of women walking by train)
Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm.
(Vintage footage of people getting on train)
KROFT: (Voiceover) …by-by posing as a Christian.
Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Right.
(Vintage footage of women helping each other get on train; train
door closing with people in boxcar)
KROFT: (Voiceover) And you watched lots of people get shipped off
to the death camps.
Mr. SOROS: Right. I was 14 years old. And I would say that that's
when my character was made.
KROFT: In what way?
Mr. SOROS: That one should think ahead. One should understand
and-and anticipate events and when-when one is threatened. It was a
tremendous threat of evil. I mean, it was a-a very personal
experience of evil.
KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of
yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.
Mr. SOROS: Yes. Yes.
KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of
property from the Jews.
Mr. SOROS: Yes. That's right. Yes.
KROFT: I mean, that's-that sounds like an experience that would
send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years.
Was it difficult?
Mr. SOROS: Not-not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you
don't-you don't see the connection. But it was-it created no-no
problem at all.
KROFT: No feeling of guilt?
Mr. SOROS: No.
KROFT: For example that, 'I'm Jewish and here I am, watching these
people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.'
None of that?
Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I c-I could be on the other side or I
could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there
was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was-well,
actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets-that if I
weren't there-of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else
would-would-would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the-whether
I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being
taken away. So the-I had no role in taking away that property. So I
had no sense of guilt.
http://www.tsrn.us/blog/2009/03/04/george-soros-helped-nazis-during-holocaust/
|8.3.09 @ 2:31PM|#
"KROFT: I mean, that's-that sounds like an experience that would
send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years.
Was it difficult?
Mr. SOROS: Not-not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you
don't-you don't see the connection. But it was-it created no-no
problem at all.
KROFT: No feeling of guilt?
Mr. SOROS: No."
OMG. That is horrible. Soros is a true sociopath. No normal person
could do that and not feel guilty. In fact, anyone but a heroic
person would be lucky not to blow their heads off afterwards.
|8.3.09 @ 2:43PM|#
"I dunno, 14 year olds are pretty shitty people."
They are. They don't have a fully developed sense of morality.
Eventually, you are supposed to develop a full sense of morality
and feel guilty for the shitty rotten things you did as a 14 year
old. Soros seems to be the same moral creature now that he was
then.
|8.3.09 @ 3:01PM|#
"Soros seems to be the same moral creature now that he was
then."
I agree. I did some shitty stuf as a 14-year-old that still haunts
me 40 years later.
For me, this says it all:
"actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets-that if I
weren't there-of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else
would-would-would be taking it away anyhow."
Said by an old man, not a kid.
|8.3.09 @ 3:05PM|#
Plus he said he was just a spectator, which has to be a lie. I doubt they brought him along just to watch. I suspect he helped load stuff. Why else bring the kid? And it's a real departure from the truth to claim he saw no benefit from this theivery; someone robbing Jews put food on his plate.
Nash|8.3.09 @ 3:09PM|#
"Nobody has said taxes are going to go up on the middle class.
No promises have been broken. Furthermore, even if they had to
break a promise, who cares? If taxes need to go up, that's not the
end of the world and it's certainly not enough to justify the
insane ranting of teabaggers who predict Stalinism."
He already raised taxes on cigarettes and we haven't hit reckless
inflation...yet.
If he doesn't want to raise taxes and is concerned about the
deficit he can simply cut spending. Since he refuses to cut on the
domestic side we can take a look at the military budget and find
some money there.
Since we all know he won't know that because he's a two faced liar
we're likely looking at another tax increase which will only harm
the economy further.
At least Carter cut military spending....
Mike Laursen|8.3.09 @ 3:17PM|#
Nothing, Nothing can be worse than Bush or that Bush-lite,
McCain!
Are you saying you think McCain wouldn't have pulled a lot of the
same shit? On what basis do you absolve him? Because he had an "R"
next to his name? Do you not remember when he rushed back to
Washington mid-campaign to show his support for bailouts?
hmm|8.3.09 @ 3:35PM|#
Nothing, Nothing can be worse than Bush or that Bush-lite,
McCain!
I once had a coworker who said no one could be worse than the last
asshole boss. He was fired a week later. It can always get
worse.
|8.3.09 @ 3:44PM|#
hmmm,
1) The Dow is a pretty solid crystallization of how the economy is
doing for the average citizen on the street. Like gas prices, it is
a number that people (especially those with 401Ks and 403Bs and
other TSAs) can look at really fast and get a sense of how they
feel about the direction of something as massive and complex as
"The Economy."
2) Ford, like the other car companies, is an American brand that
people feel strongly about (one way or the other). Also, it is a
troubled corporation that has been in the news a lot, so it having
some success is again a way for the average person to gauge the
state of the economy. Remember, hmmm, that the confidence people
feel about their economic state has a lot to do with how much they
spend and that obviously affects the state of the economy. So, I
would say that these are the potential start of a growth
pattern.
3) I am a bit offended that you would assume that I get my "talking
points" from DKos. I think that the left is full of useful idiots
and apologists for socialism, so to hell with them. I get my sense
that the GOP is preoccupied with birth certificates and calling
people racist from all the news coverage of these issues and the
way that the base/talk radio talks about it incessantly (Glenn Beck
and the crazy lady in Delaware for example). Lots of people get
that impression about the GOP, and until they counter that, the
Dems will continue to win (as long as the economy grows or at least
seems to grow to average person).
alan|8.3.09 @ 3:50PM|#
I have only one question in my mind that will decide if he
is a 1 or a 2 term president. Can Obama convince enough people that
the economy was so bad and that the republicans have stood in the
way so much that it will take longer and even the regular folks are
gonna have to help out to save the world. If everyone gets "health
care" and its economic effects don't start before 2012 and the
stimulus starts providing jobs, he will be golden.
Don't misunderestimate the willingness of the sheeple to believe in
a saviour. It is much easier than actually, you know, doing
something ourselves.
It depends on how long he can keep the 'collective guilt deserves
collective punishment' vibe going, and whether the Republicans run
someone who repeats the public religion. After all, how many times
did McCain mention 'sacrifice' on the campaign trail?
I believe that sort of rhetoric works only in the short term in the
modern economy, as it did for Clinton and Obama, but not for Carter
the second time around, nor Mondale or Gore. FDR got multiple terms
out of it in a time when austerity was the common condition, but in
our day, by 2012, the people will be sick to death of it.
|8.3.09 @ 3:56PM|#
"FDR got multiple terms out of it in a time when austerity was
the common condition, but in our day, by 2012, the people will be
sick to death of it."
People were pretty sick to death of FDR by 1940. He admitted
himself he only won in 1940 because he was a known national leader
on the eve of the war. He was not as he admits elected as "Dr. New
Deal". Like Licoln and Kennedy, his death in office papers over a
lot of his unpopularity in life. People were very tired of FDR even
then.
alan|8.3.09 @ 3:59PM|#
Well known, meaning believed by only a fringe, and
completely belied by history?
Tony's epitaph will read: Here lies a cum stain on the
keyboard of life
And one last thing,
as it did for Clinton and Obama, but not for Carter the second
time around, nor Mondale or Gore.
Clinton's '06 rhetoric was quite different in focus from the '02
guilt ridden description of the 1980's that he ran on.
|8.3.09 @ 4:01PM|#
I think Gore recieved enough collateral damage from the Clinton
BJ fiasco to keep him out of the whitehouse. If Clinton had
resigned when the crap hit the fan, Gore would have sailed in on
the twilight of a good economy. Just my opinion.
R C Dean made a great point upthread. Obama's success in 2012 will
depend on foreign affairs as well as the economy.
|8.3.09 @ 4:05PM|#
Gore lost because of Monicagate and Elian Gonzalez. If not for that, the Cuban community doesn't vote as heavily Democratic and Gore wins Florida.
alan|8.3.09 @ 4:06PM|#
unclosed tags are like a dagger to the heart.
That is quite true, and by the late 30's the administration was
backtracking from the New Deal. The Treasury Secretary, Henry
Morgantheu made some astonishing admissions of the failure of the
programs as early as 1940.
Still, he got the '36 nomination based on public tolerance of lower
expectations.
alan|8.3.09 @ 4:17PM|#
brotherben | August 3, 2009, 4:01pm | #
I think Gore recieved enough collateral damage from the Clinton BJ
fiasco to keep him out of the whitehouse. If Clinton had resigned
when the crap hit the fan, Gore would have sailed in on the
twilight of a good economy. Just my opinion.
R C Dean made a great point upthread. Obama's success in 2012 will
depend on foreign affairs as well as the economy.
John | August 3, 2009, 4:05pm | #
Gore lost because of Monicagate and Elian Gonzalez. If not for
that, the Cuban community doesn't vote as heavily Democratic and
Gore wins Florida.
Those are excellent points. It should have been a sure bet for him
to win, coming off of a successful second Clinton term, however,
those factors sunk him. It should be said though, he would not have
gotten anywhere except for those coat tails. He is just not a
likable human being, and the disconnect in his stump speeches were
a bit much.
There was a great cartoon during the 1984 campaign where Mondale is
giving his stump speech. An adviser whispers into his ear, and
tells him that the economy is improving. Mondale responds: "How the
hell did that happen?"
Gore's rhetoric was oddly similar because he was trying to distance
himself from Clinton and be his own man. He should have ran as a
personally puritanical version of Clinton instead of a poster child
of the obtuse left.
|8.3.09 @ 4:24PM|#
Gore was a robotic buffoon during the election. He spent so much effort trying to prove he was human that he didn't have time to run a campaign.
|8.3.09 @ 4:24PM|#
Gore won the popular vote and lost the electoral because 5 supreme court justices said so.
|8.3.09 @ 4:27PM|#
Alan,
Had Gore won he would have been a one termer. He was so unlikable
the country would have gotten sick of him. What is interesting to
think about is to wonder what Gore would have done post 9-11. If
you read his rhetoric about Iraq in 1998, you have to wonder if
maybe he would have done the same thing Bush did (invade
Afghanistan and Iraq). Liberals go into a homicidal rage when you
mention this though.
alan|8.3.09 @ 4:39PM|#
I remember Gore's fiery rhetoric during the '98 bombings, and
then the support he gave for the bill passed at the time which was
a declaration of intent of war in all but name. How else can you
describe calling fro the ouster of another nation's leader?
The entire Washington establishment was pro war with Iraq during
the five years running up to it. Now Bush is their scapegoat. It
reminds me of something JFK said about success having a thousand
fathers and failure being a lonely orphan. It may not be a perfect
analogy, post Rumsfeld, though ;)
|8.3.09 @ 4:42PM|#
"Gore won the popular vote and lost the electoral because 5
supreme court justices said so."
Thank G-d!
|8.3.09 @ 4:44PM|#
Yes they were Alan. And when it got hard and unpredictable, like all wars do, they ran for the hills.
hmm|8.3.09 @ 5:01PM|#
1) The Dow is a pretty solid crystallization of how the economy is doing for the average citizen on the street. Like gas prices, it is a number that people (especially those with 401Ks and 403Bs and other TSAs) can look at really fast and get a sense of how they feel about the direction of something as massive and complex as "The Economy."
People can also use the World Series and the Super Bowl. Along with
sales of condoms and chewing gum. That makes non of them anywhere
near the best measure, regardless of what your average citizen
thinks. The Dow, if anything, is a measure of confidence. The
markets look forward not at the present, not at the past, at
tomorrow. Using a forward looking measure to assess a current
situation is fucking retarded. (no not normal retarded, we are
talking fucking retarded)
2) Ford, like the other car companies, is an American brand that people feel strongly about (one way or the other). Also, it is a troubled corporation that has been in the news a lot, so it having some success is again a way for the average person to gauge the state of the economy. Remember, hmmm, that the confidence people feel about their economic state has a lot to do with how much they spend and that obviously affects the state of the economy. So, I would say that these are the potential start of a growth pattern.
Going into debt based on a $4500 government hand out is a measure
of confidence. Of course, that confidence may be misplaced, like
going into debt to purchase an asset that never depreciates with no
equity in it. Wait a minute. You are confusing confidence with
actual economic markers. For the record Ford started its
restructuring and consolidation before the crash. They divested JLR
to Tata and started consolidating models across all markets. Maybe,
just maybe, confidence in Ford is not because of the economy, but
because of Ford's actions. But that would mean business is doing
the right thing and not the government.
3) I am a bit offended that you would assume that I get my "talking points" from DKos. I think that the left is full of useful idiots and apologists for socialism, so to hell with them. I get my sense that the GOP is preoccupied with birth certificates and calling people racist from all the news coverage of these issues and the way that the base/talk radio talks about it incessantly (Glenn Beck and the crazy lady in Delaware for example). Lots of people get that impression about the GOP, and until they counter that, the Dems will continue to win (as long as the economy grows or at least seems to grow to average person).
Your points are almost verbatim off of the Center for American
Progress and both points have been at the top of the list for CAP
and it's followers for about a week. I read it too. Maybe, just
maybe, you should stop listening to the talking head pundits and
try to diverge from the "lots of people" and come to a conclusion
yourself. Maybe you actually believe the tripe handed you. If you
do, then you should be offended because I think you're a dipshit.
Which is clearly offensive.
Your superficial economic indicators and criticism of the GOP are
straight off the MSM and more precisely the left media which gets a
lot of its points from CAP. Be offended all you want, I called
bullshit on your assertions and all you had to say was I hurt your
feelings and expand on the bullshit. GDP slipped again, that is a
fact. You can spin cute fluffy kittens and rainbow riding unicorns
all you want, GDP still slipped. What are the points going to be
when unemployment comes in higher? People still working are
magically making more money? The GOP is firing people? We didn't
spend enough? The states did it? Evil big business is hogging the
profit?
Seriously. Your spin-foo is weak like Ukraine.
Mike Laursen|8.3.09 @ 5:21PM|#
I remember Gore's fiery rhetoric during the '98 bombings,
and then the support he gave for the bill passed at the time which
was a declaration of intent of war in all but name.
One thing that really got me about that is that it shows how Gore
has completely compartmentalized the warmongering part of his brain
from the "Oh, my God, global warming is coming!" part of his brain.
What could be more energy-wasting and greenhouse gas spewing than a
major military and naval deployment?
</|8.3.09 @ 5:38PM|#
"Where are the fundamentals?"
Cutting labor costs and not incurring new debt.
Dow 30k Baby!
Better buy now or you are priced out of prosperity forver.The
market only goes one way over time and that is UP!
Toe Knee|8.3.09 @ 5:43PM|#
Diebold, Halliburton, Reality Based, Illegal and Immoral War,
Dry Drunk,Laura Bush killed that guy in HS, TRIG PALIN!!!
Prescott Bush had dealings with his grandson, Hitler!
Bomb,bomb,bomb,bomb bomb Iran..........
|8.5.09 @ 6:16AM|#
Nobody has said taxes are going to go up on the middle
class.
Tony,
Someone else said your naivety was cute. It's not. Get help.
-jcr
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245