Jump to content

The Official Obama Scorecard Thread


Recommended Posts

A lot of people with lots of background in economics have been spectacularly wrong for about a decade now. I think it's all a bunch of voodoo at this point.
You mean that the experts...aren't really?Next you'll tell me the Alan Greenspan wasn't the perfect man for the job.Or that politicians have no clue how to help the economy.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 6.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

President Obama ordered the cabinet to cut $100,000,000.00 ($100 million) from the $3,500,000,000,000.00 ($3.5 trillion) federal budget.   I'm so impressed by this sacrifice that I have decided to

Now who is the one who just knows best for others. You guys are going to be wildly disappointed in how little changes after November.
I hope you're right. The best thing that could possibly happen is that the repubs (which I am not grouping myself with) take over the house and senate and are able to stop the fiscal bleeding. The repubs won't be able to do anything with Obama in the White House, so the very best thing we can possibly hope for is "little change", until we can get a real leader.*fingers crossed*
Link to post
Share on other sites
Now who is the one who just knows best for others. You guys are going to be wildly disappointed in how little changes after November.
This is totally different. Telling poor people how to live and what to do throughout their day, is very different than having their life improve without them even knowing what's happening.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope you're right. The best thing that could possibly happen is that the repubs (which I am not grouping myself with) take over the house and senate and are able to stop the fiscal bleeding. The repubs won't be able to do anything with Obama in the White House, so the very best thing we can possibly hope for is "little change", until we can get a real leader.*fingers crossed*
yep just like the last time they were in charge! oops.Retaking the Senate would be almost impossible.....especially with independent Charlie Crist poised to win in Florida (woooo!).As for the 2nd part, you might want to figure out who you are going to run first in 2012......BG, some fields have experts I trust (like medicine or law). Economics is a giant guessing game as far as I can tell.
Link to post
Share on other sites
what is the functional difference between a tax break without a reduction in spending vs. an unfunded expenditure?
I 100% agree that Bush did a terrible job at not reducing spending. In fact, I think we line up pretty closely in our overall political views, even though it doesn't seem like it at first glance. But unfunded expenditures have zero chance of producing economic growth and that is definitely not the case with a tax break, spending reduction included or not.
Link to post
Share on other sites
yep just like the last time they were in charge! oops.Retaking the Senate would be almost impossible.....especially with independent Charlie Crist poised to win in Florida (woooo!).As for the 2nd part, you might want to figure out who you are going to run first in 2012......BG, some fields have experts I trust (like medicine or law). Economics is a giant guessing game as far as I can tell.
I was not a fan of Bush's fiscal policies, but things have changed, and I think the repubs might start acting like repubs now.
Link to post
Share on other sites
BG, some fields have experts I trust (like medicine or law). Economics is a giant guessing game as far as I can tell.
shake majored in it. tell that to him!
Link to post
Share on other sites
I 100% agree that Bush did a terrible job at not reducing spending. In fact, I think we line of pretty close in our overall political views, even though it doesn't seem like it at first glance. But unfunded expenditures have zero chance of producing economic growth and that is definitely not the case with a tax break, spending reduction included or not.
as h has said repeatedly, unemployment benefits and other similar transfer payments are the least damaging of the various stimuli (that is probably not the right plural). I think it is completely absurd that the right is choosing this issue to make a stand, especially since it alienates so, so many voters and (again) so many economists, even right-leaning ones, think it is basically harmless.this was something dr. cowen said in the podcast. just fyi.
I was not a fan of Bush's fiscal policies, but things have changed, and I think the repubs might start acting like repubs now.
I am likely never voting republican again. I voted republican in '04 because the polling was held at a middle school and some teenage black kid standing outside said, "hey, you're voting kerry, right?" why didn't THAT voter harassment story make the news?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I was not a fan of Bush's fiscal policies, but things have changed, and I think the repubs might start acting like repubs now.
The only thing that has changed is they are out of power. Political parties do not change. Obama gets into the White House and he starts following the same playbook Clinton did in 1992. Republicans will get in and conveniently forget about X Y and Z. Remember, they talk a big game about immigration right now (as an example) but they did ZERO on it for 8 ****ing years except to throw a hissy fit when Bush offered a compromise bill which died a quick death. It is easy to talk big when you are out of power (Dems did a nice job of it while the country collapsed around Bush's head) much harder when you have to do stuff.To be fair, Obama actually accomplished quite a bit but going after health care first was, as I have said repeatedly, so ****ing dumb.
Link to post
Share on other sites
A lot of people with lots of background in economics have been spectacularly wrong for about a decade now. I think it's all a bunch of voodoo at this point.
I don't think it's voodoo, but it's a valid point that echoes what LLY was saying. There are smart people on both sides of every issue ever, but my point was that in an economics debate, I'm going to side every time with an expert in economics that I've listened to and trust vs. a dude on the forum with no economic background.It's totally different if someone posts something from an expert on the other side of whatever is being debated.For Strat: LLY, I'm not trying to rip on you.
Link to post
Share on other sites
as h has said repeatedly, unemployment benefits and other similar transfer payments are the least damaging of the various stimuli (that is probably not the right plural). I think it is completely absurd that the right is choosing this issue to make a stand, especially since it alienates so, so many voters and (again) so many economists, even right-leaning ones, think it is basically harmless.this was something dr. cowen said in the podcast. just fyi.
I wasn't speaking about unemployment benefits in particular. I agree with you again. Stupid move by the repubs. They just want to stop the bleeding and are taking a stand against all major expenditures.My point was directed at the specific question you asked. I think there is a big difference between tax cuts (with or without spending reductions) and straight expenditures.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasn't speaking about unemployment benefits in particular. I agree with you again. Stupid move by the repubs. They just want to stop the bleeding and are taking a stand against all major expenditures.My point was directed at the specific question you asked. I think there is a big difference between tax cuts (with or without spending reductions) and straight expenditures.
yes but they have chosen to take a stand on:1) free health care for 9/11 responders2) unemployment and not on:1) the AMT tax I happen to agree that we should not undo the AMT because it helps a lot of people but it will cost the government 1000x as much as the above two issues and we have not proactively decided how to pay for it. It seems less like the GOP has a principled stand on this and more like grandstanding when they can.
Link to post
Share on other sites
For Strat: LLY, I'm not trying to rip on you.
No one thought that, including myself. And I was serious about being an idiot, but only when it comes to economics. I know almost nothing about it, and I can just repeat what I hear and what makes sense in my head at the time.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The bolded is probably a fair point, but then I would need to know who agrees with you. Krugman?
Well, yes, I do like Krugman, but I'd never use him to convince a Republican of a point because they don't like to listen to him.I also like these guys:Dean BakerJoseph StiglitzNouriel Roubini
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, yes, I do like Krugman, but I'd never use him to convince a Republican of a point because they don't like to listen to him.I also like these guys:Dean BakerJoseph StiglitzNouriel Roubini
His brother Hugo was excellent in Inglourious Basterds.
Link to post
Share on other sites
yes but they have chosen to take a stand on:1) free health care for 9/11 responders2) unemployment and not on:1) the AMT tax I happen to agree that we should not undo the AMT because it helps a lot of people but it will cost the government 1000x as much as the above two issues and we have not proactively decided how to pay for it. It seems less like the GOP has a principled stand on this and more like grandstanding when they can.
Every year they put a patch on the AMT. If they didn't it would affect something like 27 Million Americans. It needs to be fixed. It was put in place to tax 155 families that had so many write offs they paid no tax. It was not created with an inflation adjustment.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Every year they put a patch on the AMT. If they didn't it would affect something like 27 Million Americans. It needs to be fixed. It was put in place to tax 155 families that had so many write offs they paid no tax. It was not created with an inflation adjustment.
We put off lots of things we should do today. That's the American way (of governance).
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill Clinton has more cool in his pinky than the last four GOP presidents put together.
I don't know about that. Clinton always struck me as a bit of a kicked-puppy with an intense need to be loved and accepted. You cannot possibly be cool when you're a 'pleaser' and always burying your nose up everyone's anus. Like, lets say the ex-Presidents of the past few decades are walking down an alley when they're confronted by a group of attackers.Jimmy Carter hands over his wallet.Reagan covertly undoes the snap on his holster. Bush 1 takes the cue from Reagan and starts to maneuver accordingly. Clinton sheds a single, lonely tear and starts talking about their pain and how he understands why they need to do what they've done.Bush 2 is confused but realizing there's a problem, starts flailing around and wildly swinging at everyone.Obama tells them that if they don't knock this stuff off, he won't loan them any money at the next family reunion. A president cannot possibly be worth shit unless he's at least a wee bit of an ass kicker. That's a presidents *only* job; to be volatile, unpredictable and possible dangerous in the eyes of the world. In this country, we leave the planning and intellectual stuff to our Jewish 'advisers'. None of the (D)'s have ever been much more than weeping bitches, simply because one cannot possibly ascribe themselves to the larger (D) philosophy without first being a poon and since one cannot be both poon and ass-kicker, the (D)'s fall very short in the testosterone category, invariably coming off as twirling, wrist flopping homos. Since this is America and not Europe, they must make hollow overtures to look like 'a mans man', so we wind up with pictures of John Kerry awkwardly holding a shotgun or Hussein throwing a baseball like a girl, somewhat oblivious to the fact that everyone sees through their fiction and straight into their estrogen-laden souls. I hope that fat dego from New Jersey runs. I'd probably vote for him, if for no reason other than the Whitehouse hasn't had a fattie in office since William Howard Taft and I support dietary diversity.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Congress has only helped the economy with the stimulus and the financial bill (if you say these hurt today's economy, you're wrong), but they'll still receive the blame.
Please present a complete theory how taking money from the productive sector and transferring to the politically connected, lobbyists, and unions can improve the economy. I've asked many people many times, and nobody can offer a plausible theory.The financial bill just guarantees another crisis a decade from now, which people who weren't paying attention will again blame on "free markets."
Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, one should not discount the actual benefits of the stimulus (not just in terms of jobs, but what those jobs did). There were actual advances in infrastructure,
Within 10 miles of my house, two roads were completely torn out and repaved, using stimulus dollars. They were in perfect shape before the project, and in the same shape two months later. No lanes or capacity were added, no change in traffic flow.For our next benefit, we are going to dig holes and fill them back in. That's the recipe for real economic growth.Oh, and less than 7% of the stimulus went toward anything that can even plausibly called infrastructure, even by the deluded standards of this administration.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Within 10 miles of my house, two roads were completely torn out and repaved, using stimulus dollars. They were in perfect shape before the project, and in the same shape two months later. No lanes or capacity were added, no change in traffic flow.For our next benefit, we are going to dig holes and fill them back in. That's the recipe for real economic growth.Oh, and less than 7% of the stimulus went toward anything that can even plausibly called infrastructure, even by the deluded standards of this administration.
There's a large project here to fix the Palmetto Expressway (worst road ever) and it is providing 1,000 jobs. Maybe you guys should take a look at your bridges. The idea that all construction is "digging a hole and filling it in" is ridiculous.
Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a large project here to fix the Palmetto Expressway (worst road ever) and it is providing 1,000 jobs. Maybe you guys should take a look at your bridges. The idea that all construction is "digging a hole and filling it in" is ridiculous.
A large proportion of the infrastructure that came from the stimulus was wasted, and the infrastructure portion was a tiny portion of the stimulus. The rest went to gifts to unions, lobbyists, and political congressmen. Did they probably hit a few necessary projects along the way? It would be pretty hard not to, with that much money, but their hit percentage seems to be lower than if they had just listed random states and cities on a dartboard.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...