patrick.net

PolishKnight says

Hmmm, wasn't that what everyone said about Obama back in 2008? That the economy would be doing great by 2011 and he would be a shoe-in

I don't recall many stating that given that the economy was in the worst shape than it had ever been since the 30's depression. Its important to recall that the 30's depression didn't end until WW2 caused production to soar and put people back to work out of necessity. So its a bit unrealistic to expect the economy to have mended itself totally at this point. Though it is better than it was, it took the better part of 30 years to cause the mess that crashed the economy thus 4 years is a relatively short time to fix things. Perhaps Romney wouldn't fix things either but the simple passing of time would be more to his advantage 4 years on versus starting a Presidency at the very start of a major recession/depression.

As far as Demographics, putting all of the whatever "entitlement" comments aside ( which I don't agree with) and looking at this as a purely mathematical issue, the math is increasingly working against the Republicans because regardless of why people vote for whatever group, the singular group Republicans seem to appeal to is shrinking while those groups who tend to support Democrats is growing. It doesn't take a mathematician to see the writing on the wall. Republicans made a mistake of chasing this one and only voting demographic while failing to change to appeal to others. Republicans and Romney aren't stupid and thus why we saw a bit of "softening" during the first debate.

Again- I think that this would be a good thing. Elected officials are meant to represent all of the people. If both start doing a better job of doing this, the better that would be for the country overall.

rootvg says

presidential candidates to run to the extremes in their respective primaries then back to the center after the convention. The guy that gets there first, wins.

This is precisely why I don't vote. It's just a cynical game of telling people what they want to hear.

"Republicans made a mistake of chasing this one and only voting demographic while failing to change to appeal to others."

It's rather hard for the Republicans to "appeal" to the others when the main thing the Democrats were promising was to throw the Republican's primary demographic under the bus and deny them equal enrollment to universities and access to public jobs (that's like WWII Germany taking away the rights of Poles to go to school and then saying that they don't deserve to go to school because they're illiterate. Socialists are such nice people.)

But sure, one candidate did try: McCain. He went to LaRaza (translation The Race) and hinted at amnesty and of course, future entitlements.

"I don't recall many stating that [the economy would improve/do great by 2011]"

Argument of ignorance. Very well, if you don't recall it then forget it. But I find this argument amusing:

"Its important to recall that the 30's depression didn't end until WW2 caused production to soar and put people back to work out of necessity."

Indeed! Says a lot about FDR's economic policies, don't they? Just take a nap while those intelligence reports come in about Japanese aircraft carriers approaching Hawaii and make a "sacrifice."*

And the left accuses GW of being a bloodthirsty monster.

*(Yeah, ok, FDR probably wasn't that monstrous but the fact is that it's clear that his "economic policies" only worked by becoming a wartime dictator and locking up Japanese Americans into internment camps. I guess that's another demographic that FDR didn't mind if they went over to the Republicans...)

"Nixon used to tell"...

That's like taking courtroom ethics advice from Bill Clinton. :-)

thomaswong.1986 says

As an example, Jobs described the ease with which companies can build factories in China compared to the United States, where “regulations and unnecessary costs” make it difficult for them.
Jobs also criticized America’s education system, saying it was “crippled by union work rules,” noted Isaacson. “Until the teachers’ unions were broken, there was almost no hope for education reform.” Jobs proposed allowing principals to hire and fire teachers based on merit, that schools stay open until 6 p.m. and that they be open 11 months a year.

I am not in favor of attacks on unions. The 2nd part of your argument for schools to stay open late and for 11 months perhaps may be of benefit in that it would reduce expenses of childcare.

PolishKnight says

It's rather hard for the Republicans to "appeal" to the others when the main thing the Democrats were promising was to throw the Republican's primary demographic under the bus and deny them equal enrollment to universities and access to public jobs

I don't think its all that hard. Its about compromise and admittedly Democrats are also guilty of refusing the compromise on certain issues, if both were to do so then the public would probably be more likely to accept compromise themselves: Instead of an all-or-nothing approach, if both sides make concessions then voters along with politicians would feel that they both walked away with something even if the outcome wasn't totally what they wanted.

PolishKnight says

Argument of ignorance. Very well, if you don't recall it then forget it. But I find this argument amusing:

I don't have a short memory and no, most people I knew didn't expect a recovery anytime soon. The fact is that the recession we were/are still in was largely due to money being sucked out of the middle class via a housing bubble that caused more Americans to sink a huge percentage of their money and income into a housing market that had been carefully and purposively manipulated. Now- I in no way feel sorry for those who overpaid for a house. My wife and I saved for years and years to buy the house we now own. But putting responsibility aside for a minute the US economy had transformed from a economy that was based on production to consumption and largely due to the consumption of major debt. This transformation began in the early 80's with the cutting of many financial regulations that made it far easier to sell debt upriver and thus turn things like home loans into packaged trade goods which then of course led to an increased level of risk. Given that fact, you can't expect to change an economy from being mostly based on consumption and debt to one that is based on production and positive cash flow. So no- I don't think its a big secret that many thought that magically 30+ years of an economy based on debt could be easily turned around in 4 short years.

PolishKnight says

Indeed! Says a lot about FDR's economic policies, don't they?

No, not really. If this is in reference to the so-called "Kensyian" policies such as the CCC, WPA, TVA, and so on, the major reason why the US economy fell into a major depression was because the government decided to put huge tariffs on imported goods and thus this created a trade war and threw the US deeper into depression. Lesson learned: no politician has ever tried to do something that severe ever since.

Edvard2 doesn't want to drop it, ok: "I don't have a short memory and no, most people I knew didn't expect a recovery anytime soon."

“A year from now, I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress. If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.” -- Barack Obama

Keep in mind he was promising "hope and change" while now he and his supporters claim that he's impotent to do anything. Regarding FDR, whatever justification you use for the miserable economy he delivered for two terms until he ran a dictatorial wartime economy with food and gas rationing, it's all his. Even Hoover could have bought votes for his cronies, thrown civilians into concentration camps, and ran a decent economy where the population willingly accepted low wages and children forced to serve in war.

David1 says: "The stock market has doubled."

And so has the price of gas! And sugar prices have jumped too. We're entering a period of hyperinflation. But don't worry! Wages have remained stagnant so it's all good! Speaking for that:

"The economy has gone from shedding 500k+ jobs per month to adding 100k+ per month."

Yeah yeah yeah. I heard that somewhere. :-) At this rate, they'll have enough part-time McJobs to go to a fraction of the chronically unemployed in 10 years or so. Assuming they want them now that Obama has ended work-for-welfare!

"Economic growth has generally been positive, albeit slow, for 3 years."

Yeah, tell that to the people out of work who DON'T want to be on welfare. I remember when Bush's economic figures were positive the left spun it precisely this way. Double standard.

"Inflation has been low."

Hahahaha! See above. I don't know where they get those figures from. Don't they buy bread, meat, sugar, or gas?

"There have been no new wars and public enemy #1 was killed.
No scandals."

Giving guns to the Mexico cartel so they can murder Americans and Mexicans alike and then blaming it all on the NRA is ok as long as President Nixon's Department of Justice, er, Obama's Eric Holder agrees that he shouldn't release the records. (No need to do that. Executive Privilege.)

What was WWII, if not pure Keynesian policy? Huge deficit spending is stimulative. The Government could employ those people as soldiers, or conversely as construction workers, scientists, teachers, etc.

Austerity---look at Europe to see how well that works.

"What was WWII, if not pure Keynesian policy?"

Try another term: slave and forced labor.

Scientists drafted and forced to work on bombs. Young men sent overseas and forced to kill at minimum wage (think the Iraq war was ugly? Look at the pictures of what the judges of Dresden did at Nuremburg!) Rationing and confiscation generated amazing profits for the state.

Note that people didn't mind this since they were fighting for "democracy" and viewed the sacrifice as acceptable. When people are not enthusiastically fighting and working for low wages, then the system fails.

Obama doesn't have a magic "fix the economy" button.

Neither does Romney.

PolishKnight says

Regarding FDR, whatever justification you use for the miserable economy he delivered for two terms until he ran a dictatorial wartime economy with food and gas rationing, it's all his.

I happen to have many surviving people in my family who lived during the depression and of course later, WW2. Its important to remember that in the 30's there were little to no assistance programs. If you lost your job- too bad. You suddenly had no money. If you had money in the bank and the bank went bankrupt... whoops- you just lost all of your money. Given that situation MANY people were out on the street and in some cases starving. Many of the programs passed by the FDR administration were done so as a means to keep people from starving. Some of my family members worked for the CCC, TVA, the WPA, and so on. Not a single one would ever say that these were worthless programs because they kept them from going hungry. People tend to forgot how dire the situation as then and thus stop-gap measures had to be made to solve some of those problems.

PolishKnight says

he ran a dictatorial wartime economy with food and gas rationing, it's all his.

So... what exactly is that supposed to mean? That the way we won the war was all wrong? Should we have sat around and done nothing? Should we have said, ahh, the heck with it, let's not build those tanks, planes, ships, and artillery pieces? Revisionist history only works when the point is to try and claim that the reason something didn't work was because of XXX. Well, sorry but we won WW2 and so a revisionist spin is utterly pointless. Most of the men in my family fought in WW2 and I can most definitely assure you they would be rolling on the ground laughing reading about a so-called "dictatorial economy" or whatever.

PolishKnight says

And so has the price of gas! And sugar prices have jumped too. We're entering a period of hyperinflation. But don't worry! Wages have remained stagnant so it's all good! Speaking for that:

Seems convenient to forget that in 2007 there was a HUGE spike in gas prices- well before Obama's administration. Secondly, wages have been stagnate since the 1970's so nothing new to report there either...

PolishKnight,

I can't even figure out what your ideological position is. It seems like you are just ranting and throwing stuff against a wall hoping some of it will stick.

PolishKnight says

And so has the price of gas! And sugar prices have jumped too. We're entering a period of hyperinflation.

Ha. Gasoline.
RBOB July 2008: $3.57
September 2012: $3.04
DOWN 14.9%

Sugar
July 2008: $.15
Sept 2012: $.20
UP 33%

Live Cattle
July 2008: 103.80
September 2012: 122.08
UP 17.6%

Hogs
August 2008: 89.97
September 2012: 77.17
DOWN 14.3%

Corn
July 2008: 716
September 2012: 740
UP 3.3%

Wheat
June 2008: 904
September 2012: 902
DOWN .2%

Natural Gas
July 2008: 13.58
September 2012: 3.32
DOWN 75.5%

http://wikiposit.org/a?uid=FUTURE.NG1

HYPERINFLATION!!!!

Some of those ag commodities will spike thanks to the massive drought.

Obviously Obama caused the drought. ;-)

Polish knight says, "If he blows it, and goes "moderate" and the economy tanks as with GHB, then I may just stay home the next election."

We've seen an example of this in current era. Bill Clinton was a moderate and he was easily reelected. Think about it: if he's not right-leaning enough to please the hardcore elements of his own party, will they really vote democrat? I highly doubt it. Going moderate is the way to get a second term. Obama wasn't moderate, and that's why he's on the chopping block.

Romney had to go hard right to get the GOP nomination, while Obama was free to play moderate this season. It made Romney look extreme and Obama look more friendly. Now, with the GOP bullshit out of the way, Romney can swing back to where he's more comfortable: the middle. If he can sell this story, if he can use the next month to show Americans that he's not a heartless corporate tool, if he can show some sort of plan that people can get behind, he's gonna win it.
Obama has no more cards in the deck to play.

I can't wait until one of you Austrian tards mentions Gold.

Here is my response:

1. I tried living in my gold, it didn't keep the wind and rain out very well.
2. I tried eating my gold and it tasted like shit and gave me the runs.
3. My car wouldn't start after I put my gold in my gas tank.
4. My house was cold last winter because I my gold wouldn't burn in the furnace.
5. I tried some gold in my coffee but it wasn't very sweet.
6. My cattle sure look skinny on their diet of gold.
7. Its hard to move around in my gold suit and it doesn't keep me very warm.
8. My gold doesn't even get basic cable.
9. I can't access the internet on my gold.
10. The reception on my gold sucks. It never has any bars. (pun intended)

Edvard2 says: "People tend to forgot how dire the situation as then and thus stop-gap measures had to be made to solve some of those problems."

Only they didn't solve them (WWII did, remember?) They were a band aid at best (and keep in mind that there were soup kitchens during the Hoover years).

"I can most definitely assure you they would be rolling on the ground laughing reading about a so-called "dictatorial economy" or whatever."

Don't get me wrong, I agree as a Polish-American that it was good that the USA entered WWII. But he did so using dictatorial powers (and methods) that were regarded as oppressive in Iraq. My father gave me his WWII era German translation book. Included are questions to ask prisoners of war "How many troops at that location?" (Note: You're not supposed to ask questions like that. Just their rank and serial number. But I'm sure they "persuaded" answers out of them.) Dresden was firebombed. Can you imagine GWB rationing gasoline to win the war in Iraq? And putting Iraq and Afghanistan under martial law and totally controlling the population would be considered fascism today, but that's how they tamed Japan after dictating their constitution.

And hey, like you said, it worked (the war) but FDR's economic policies, not so much. On the contrary, the welfare state only bred, literally, more poor people to the point that Clinton signed off on welfare reform under duress, bragged about it later, and then later tried to deny that Obama was rescinding it. The American workers don't like paying welfare mothers to have children into poverty and that's the problem with a system that has no requirements for collecting aid.

Finally, the gas and sugar prices aren't mere "spikes". These are sustained, even permanent, increases unless natural gas and oil is drilled again (or speculators seeing that Romney is elected drive prices down via derivatives. Should happen within HOURS if he wins!) Also, ethanol which doesn't make any sense either financially or environmentally: Why spend a gallon of gasoline (and manpower as well as environmental damage) to make a gallon of ethanol and then kill people's car engines again causing environmental damage from the repairs? That's bad corporate welfare.

Quigley claims: "We've seen an example of this in current era. Bill Clinton was a moderate and he was easily reelected. Think about it: if he's not right-leaning enough to please the hardcore elements of his own party, will they really vote democrat?"

Clinton RAN as a moderate to fool (remaining) white male middle class independents and it worked for him. But it was clear he was as left as Obama when he got into office and wanted HillaryCare (remember that?) and government funded daycare. He also wanted a massive tax increase but instead got a smaller one on "millionaires" (which meant actually $250K/yr earners) His perjury scandal along with other financial scandals held up his agenda after that and then he basically ran water for Alan Greenspan.

Ironically, when economies are bad Obama blames GW but if economies are good, then GHB didn't get credit from Clinton but that's politics, of course. Clinton's first term was good economically while he got "Lewinski's" under the desk. A second term was easy and he didn't want to rock the boat by making voters think he'd do anything. Perhaps the best Democrat president is the one who does least. :-) Also, Dole was an AWFUL candidate (almost as bad as McCain) and he was portrayed by the media as a monster when he actually is civil and plays ball like most senators do.

In any case, the question is whether "moderate" Republicans do well. The same kind of applies here in that if Romney is elected and fixes the economy, then he'll get reelected and if he doesn't fix it, it won't really matter whether conservative or moderate. The media will NOT cut him any slack. So the question for him is whether his policies work rather than whether his base will show up or not.

It's a good test actually. If conservative policies don't work, then honestly we should reevaluate them. If moderate policies don't work, then let the sharks eat him. Does that sound fair?

Quigley says

If he can sell this story, if he can use the next month to show Americans that he's not a heartless corporate tool

He's got his work cut out for him.

PolishKnight says

Only they didn't solve them (WWII did, remember?) They were a band aid at best (and keep in mind that there were soup kitchens during the Hoover years).

If you look at what I had written, I wasn't arguing that the programs put into place by FDR were an economic fix. But they were necessary.

PolishKnight says

Finally, the gas and sugar prices aren't mere "spikes". These are sustained, even permanent, increases unless natural gas and oil is drilled again

We keep seeing about these calls to drill drill drill and drill some more. Whether on public or private lands, the US at this point is close to becoming not only the world's largest producer of natural gas, but the world's largest oil producer as well, with some studies suggesting that could be the case within as little as the next 5-10 years. So if the argument is that we should drill and drill, then that has been and is still the case and on a scale not seen in many decades. So its not like there was suddenly a drop-off in oil production as soon as a Democrat was elected, but rather the opposite.

PolishKnight says

Try another term: slave and forced labor.

Yawn.

PolishKnight says

Clinton RAN as a moderate to fool (remaining) white male middle class independents and it worked for him. But it was clear he was as left as Obama when he got into office

I agree. Both are as left as the Republican Party circa 1985-92.

PolishKnight says

"Nixon used to tell"...

That's like taking courtroom ethics advice from Bill Clinton. :-)

Say what you want, but he was a very effective President.

We're not discussing ethics here. This is about competency and Tricky Dick had his shit together. That's why he won so decidedly in 1972. McGovern was an amateur next to him.

freak80 says

Obama doesn't have a magic "fix the economy" button.

Neither does Romney.

Nor does anyone else.

I don't think unemployment will go down all that much under Romney except for the extent to which corporate America will have confidence that we'll get a Federal budget in 2013 and that grownups are in charge again with the politically correct academics back to Berkeley or Chicago or Harvard or wherever the fuck they came from.

This is gonna take time.

I think the other question is if Romney does win, will he have any better luck with a gridlocked congress and senate? If current polls hold until the election, it appears that at the very least the senate will be split and congress could potentially even go a bit more to Democrats. Given the Republican's decision to tactfully not support anything the President presented I'd imagine that as immature as it is, Democrats will probably "return the favor" and do likewise. If that's the case then we would basically have a deadlocked situation with a figurehead president.

edvard2 says

I think the other question is if Romney does win, will he have any better luck with a gridlocked congress and senate? If current polls hold until the election, it appears that at the very least the senate will be split and congress could potentially even go a bit more to Democrats. Given the Republican's decision to tactfully not support anything the President presented I'd imagine that as immature as it is, Democrats will probably "return the favor" and do likewise. If that's the case then we would basically have a deadlocked situation with a figurehead president.

Yes, very likely both parties will continue to make the "power grab" play - do whatever it takes, say whatever it takes to smash the opponents and retain seats or conquer seats.

I like a President who can bend a bit and REPRESENT the people, but Mittens is just a tool. I have no doubt his core belief is to serve the 1% and the rest of us can eat shit and die. There's nothing in his background to indicate he identifies one iota with the 99%. That he can pretend really well once in a while and people actually BUY IT is just sad proof there's a sucker born every minute.

edvard2 says

Given the Republican's decision to tactfully not support anything the President presented I'd imagine that as immature as it is, Democrats will probably "return the favor" and do likewise.

If so, that would be a departure from typical Democratic behavior. Either they lie consistently to their own constituents and really support conservatism, or they are a bunch of pussies and acquiesce.

Like Will Rogers said, "I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat!".

Say what you want about the GOP, but they are very good at retail politics, even if that means unprecedented use of the filibuster and stonewalling any progress for their own short-term political gain.

Democrats will likely give a GOP President anything he wants, with minor concessions.

edvard2 says

What if Romney turns out to be moderate?

Then pigs will fly out of my ass.

Dan8267 says, "Then pigs will fly out of my ass."

Eat some rancid bacon and that could become a reality!

CL says

Say what you want about the GOP, but they are very good at retail politics, even if that means unprecedented use of the filibuster and stonewalling any progress for their own short-term political gain.

But that sort of behavior basically means those that participate in such tactics are not serving the people. Thus if that be the case, why vote for unqualified politicians?

rootvg says

with the politically correct academics back to Berkeley or Chicago or Harvard or wherever the fuck they came from.

If the Democrats would put those folks out of the party, the Democrats would regain the permanent majority status they had before 1968.

I'm not holding my breath.

freak80 says

rootvg says

with the politically correct academics back to Berkeley or Chicago or Harvard or wherever the fuck they came from.

If the Democrats would put those folks out of the party, the Democrats would regain the permanent majority status they had before 1968.

I'm not holding my breath.

You're right, but it won't happen.

Today's Democrats aren't Democrats at all. They're Greens.

freak80 says

If the Democrats would put those folks out of the party, the Democrats would regain the permanent majority status they had before 1968.
I'm not holding my breath.

Yeah I am so sick of the democrats. The whole Leadbetter law is just silly. As a man, I have always been in a position where someone gets paid more or less for doing the same job as me. There are too many factors that come into play. Now women alone will be protected-whatever happened to life experience, skills, learning from your mistakes, becoming stronger and negotiating from that?

I just don't get why corporations or even a business can now be forced by the government to pay somone what the govt thinks they should be paid. I hate offshoring and all, but more and more rules like this and no wonder corporations give their entire jobs to offshored solutions. it is not just the cost-but they don't have to comply with this garbage and constant threat of lawsuits. The repubs want to gut all regulations and remove all safety, which is the other extreme.

The same with all the garbage about alimony and extreme amount sof child support. I welcome equality and believe in it-so get off your behind and act as one-not oh I work if I want to and if I stay at home-the man owes me for life.

Then I look at the repubs and they are batsh*t crazy. They seem to want to take women back to the stone ages-that ship has sailed a long time ago. Today there are more women college graduates than men-so not going to happen. Then their outdated views on minorities, gays etc.

But I think affirmative actions also need to end. it was ok back then, when blacks and other minorities were prevented by law from holding many type of jobs., it was needed to break that hold. But Jay Z and beyonce's baby does not need affirmative action help. No, I am not white.

if there is some sort of quota, then poverty should be the deciding factor. The white son/daughter of crackhead should get the same help as a black or latina.

It is like the democrats and repubs are to the extremes , pandering to their base and demonizing the others and from what i converse with a lot of people, there are a lot of people in the middle, who really want change, but feel so left out.

david1 says

HYPERINFLATION!!!!

That was a snapshot of today's prices. They have been drastically higher, and somewhat lower.
Volatility is even worse when you have stagnate wages.
It is that climate that creates uncertainty in the consumer and our GDP.
When you can't budget accordingly because you're monthly spread is moving target. Then it's not very conducive to an economic recovery, on a National level or in the Home, and certainly not in the work place. Where it really counts.

CaptainShuddup says

That was a snapshot of today's prices. They have been drastically higher, and somewhat lower.
Volatility is even worse when you have stagnate wages.

The market situation today and probably until the "fiscal cliff" issue is resolved. There is a lot of uncertainty over this especially given how things turned out the last time- when Republicans basically turned what had been a straightforward procedure into mount everest.

Rootvg says: "Say what you want, but [Clinton] was a very effective President."

In a way, you have a point. He had a great economy and therefore took all the credit for it. On the other hand, Obama has a lousy economy so none of it is his fault and this implies that if things don't improve in another 4 years, it still won't be his fault. Which is really turning off likely voters according to the polls right now.

When I ask people what Bill Clinton really _did_ they are usually low on specifics. He raised taxes on "the rich" but that wasn't a lot of money. Other than that, all he did was run water for Greenspan, enjoy the dotcom and housing bubble boom, and sign off on welfare reform third time it hit his desk. (Which Obama is now trying to overturn. Again, something working and middle class Americans are not appreciating right now.)

As I said above though, what matters most is the weather so to speak. Fair weather and the weatherman gets a banquet and a bunch of virgins as a reward. Bad weather and he's thrown into the volcano. A "moderate" Romney with a bad economy will be unlikely to see a second term (unless the Dems put up some more awful candidates so don't count that out!) but if the economy goes well, sure, he may get elected again even if he's moderate. Or conservative for that matter. It's all about results.

PolishKnight says

When I ask people what Bill Clinton really _did_ they are usually low on specifics. He raised taxes on "the rich" but that wasn't a lot of money.

And yet somehow, whatever he did that to you "wasn't a lot of money" had us on a track to a ZERO DEFICIT by about 2012! There was even a paper in 1999 about the daunting prospect of what would happen when they couldn't market Treasuries any more.

So... vote Republican?

WTF?

And again a canard about "welfare reform" and how middle America is screaming for it. Ridiculous to the last. Dumber Americans have been brainwashed to think they accept no "welfare", not realizing they actually do depend on it directly or indirectly.

Visnente, what your lame chart does not show is out of control spending. No matter how much tax revenue comes in, liberals spend that much, plus more, then scream "we NEED more money (no you don't) - the rich aren't paying their "FAIR SHARE" (yes we are).

Honest Abe says

Visnente, what your lame chart does not show is out of control spending.

His chart showed ALL of the spending. The point being made is that we constantly hear from Republicans about how most any beneficial programs are somehow bad while totally ignoring the fact that the bulk of the spending is from some of the very programs and issues they support. Its interesting that whenever a Republican is President, you NEVER hear a single peep out of any Republicans or conservatives about spending even though they themselves actually tend to spend more historically. Yet whenever a Democrat comes to power, suddenly out come the cries over spending, food stamps, and "People who don't deserve" this or that.