The Official Obama Scorecard Thread

[CaneBrain 95]

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.

I'm sure it is about the same. Don't set up a system where you need extremely powerful political AND corporate/union and then act surprised when everyone gets a payoff post-election. For Bush it was Halliburton and other corporate interests. For Obama it was the stimulus. He has no choice if he wants a prayer of getting elected again in 2012. They cleanse their conscience by assuring themselves that a good portion of the money will go to good use.It's why I am so adamant that corporations and unions and lobbies not be allowed to inundate the political process with money. You have to get money out of politics. It's the only way to stop stuff like this; otherwise, you just have to accept it and move on. Some nobody named Rick Scott who had to pay a 1.7 billion dollar fine for Medicare Fraud at his hospitals won the GOP nomination for governor. This guy is a complete jackass who wants to bring the Arizona immigration law to Florida (I know you are a huge fan of that). He ran the most dirty, negative campaign I have ever seen.but he spent 50 million on a PRIMARY campaign (see, sometimes the rich don't create jobs with their wealth) and just hammered at his opponent until he broke. Even then, he only won 51-49 bc he is so ridiculous. I am sure he will spend 100 million trying to win the governorship (a position that Dems had no chance at if Scott loses the primary.....Rick Scott polls terribly with independents and liberals, of course, despise him.)

[dapokerbum 0]

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.

At first look, I swear this said "unicorns" ...

[hblask 1]

I'm sure it is about the same. Don't set up a system where you need extremely powerful political AND corporate/union and then act surprised when everyone gets a payoff post-election. For Bush it was Halliburton and other corporate interests. For Obama it was the stimulus. He has no choice if he wants a prayer of getting elected again in 2012. They cleanse their conscience by assuring themselves that a good portion of the money will go to good use.It's why I am so adamant that corporations and unions and lobbies not be allowed to inundate the political process with money. You have to get money out of politics. It's the only way to stop stuff like this; otherwise, you just have to accept it and move on. Some nobody named Rick Scott who had to pay a 1.7 billion dollar fine for Medicare Fraud at his hospitals won the GOP nomination for governor. This guy is a complete jackass who wants to bring the Arizona immigration law to Florida (I know you are a huge fan of that). He ran the most dirty, negative campaign I have ever seen.but he spent 50 million on a PRIMARY campaign (see, sometimes the rich don't create jobs with their wealth) and just hammered at his opponent until he broke. Even then, he only won 51-49 bc he is so ridiculous. I am sure he will spend 100 million trying to win the governorship (a position that Dems had no chance at if Scott loses the primary.....Rick Scott polls terribly with independents and liberals, of course, despise him.)

This is where the founders were wise. They knew that if you started allowing the govt to hand out goodies that those goodies would go to the highest bidder. The only answer is to quit asking for federal solutions to local problems, and I don't see that happening any time soon. Too many people think their own welfare is good for the nation and it's only those other people's welfare that is bad for us.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Okay...?

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 Stimulus bill, which I was talking about, didn't take money from the productive sector of today, which is the point I was making. I'm not sure what your rebuttal is rebutting.And I don't need to make a complete "theory" for several reasons. One, there is no such thing as a complete economic theory. One has never existed and one will never exist. There are models, and every model has errors. Some are more accurate than others.Besides, why do I need to make a theory when I can instead produce concrete evidence that taking money from the rich as a higher proportion can produce an economically strong country. See, for example: America, United States of, 1776 -> present. For further evidence, see: Europe, countries of -> ~ 1800's to present.Also, I have chosen to ignore the "politically connected, lobbyists, and unions" part of your comment on the grounds that it's silly.

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.

Oh my god, one example that you are sure is a waste because you looked at it! Besides, even if the government were digging holes and filling them in, that can still have an economic benefit. I know you'll disagree and say that it's part of your fundamental theory, but you'd be wrong. For example, the biggest turn around in American history came as a result of America paying a lot of people to build big machines to dig holes and fill them back in and then destroying those machines.I mean, for a person who always says, "evidence matters," sometimes you choose to live in a world very different from the real one.

[akoff 0]

Okay...?The Stimulus bill, which I was talking about, didn't take money from the productive sector of today, which is the point I was making. I'm not sure what your rebuttal is rebutting.And I don't need to make a complete "theory" for several reasons. One, there is no such thing as a complete economic theory. One has never existed and one will never exist. There are models, and every model has errors. Some are more accurate than others.Besides, why do I need to make a theory when I can instead produce concrete evidence that taking money from the rich as a higher proportion can produce an economically strong country. See, for example: America, United States of, 1776 -> present. For further evidence, see: Europe, countries of -> ~ 1800's to present.Also, I have chosen to ignore the "politically connected, lobbyists, and unions" part of your comment on the grounds that it's silly.Oh my god, one example that you are sure is a waste because you looked at it! Besides, even if the government were digging holes and filling them in, that can still have an economic benefit. I know you'll disagree and say that it's part of your fundamental theory, but you'd be wrong. For example, the biggest turn around in American history came as a result of America paying a lot of people to build big machines to dig holes and fill them back in and then destroying those machines.I mean, for a person who always says, "evidence matters," sometimes you choose to live in a world very different from the real one.

hmmm where to begin....somewhere in this thread you stated you didn't understand ecomomics, you have proved that with this comment.

[85suited 0]

Besides, even if the government were digging holes and filling them in, that can still have an economic benefit. I know you'll disagree and say that it's part of your fundamental theory, but you'd be wrong. For example, the biggest turn around in American history came as a result of America paying a lot of people to build big machines to dig holes and fill them back in and then destroying those machines.I mean, for a person who always says, "evidence matters," sometimes you choose to live in a world very different from the real one.

[mk 11]

yorke: all you need to know is that mk is wrong about EVERYTHING(except for laura marling)

DIE

[LongLiveYorke 38]

hmmm where to begin....somewhere in this thread you stated you didn't understand ecomomics, you have proved that with this comment.

Oh, you're right, it turns out that World War II didn't play a major role in bringing us out of the great depression. After all, if it wasn't for the army, all those people could have been back at home being jobless and living in Hoovervilles. It's the broken Hitler Fallacy!In reality, if the hurts the economy to have potentially productive members of the country out of work. Their potential production is being wasted. This is a non-linear effect: the longer they are out of the job, the more difficult it is to get a job, the less motivated they become, the more unemployment they collect, and the more their family suffers. On the other hand, skimming across the top of the economy in future taxes is pretty linear: if I tax the rich an extra X % to pay for the jobs I create for the unemployed, the rich's productivity doesn't fall by a non-linear function of X. Therefore, I gain the difference, which is the extra productivity lost by the unemployed.This is what World War II did. The people who went to the army or into factories didn't in general come from other jobs, and therefore it didn't rob the economy of otherwise productive citizens. They were unemployed men and women (who didn't work at all previously). The government essentially paid for extra production without charging current production. If the government is in a position where it can buy the cost of production at the cost of only that production, it should do so.On the other hand, if the economy is in a stable equilibrium where the amount of people employed is at the right level based on consumption and need, then it hurts to artificially create jobs, because you're robbing potentially better production from an otherwise occupied sector. Simply citing "broken window fallacy" is an oversimplification.

[mk 11]

This is a non-linear effect......skimming across the top of the economy in future taxes is pretty linear: if I tax the rich an extra X % to pay for the jobs I create for the unemployed, the rich's productivity doesn't fall by a non-linear function of X.

WHOA WHOA WHOA with this linear/non-linear stuff. We like to keep the discussions strictly in tardland in this forum.

[Balloon guy 158]

Oh, you're right, it turns out that World War II didn't play a major role in bringing us out of the great depression. After all, if it wasn't for the army, all those people could have been back at home being jobless and living in Hoovervilles. It's the broken Hitler Fallacy!In reality, if the hurts the economy to have potentially productive members of the country out of work. Their potential production is being wasted. This is a non-linear effect: the longer they are out of the job, the more difficult it is to get a job, the less motivated they become, the more unemployment they collect, and the more their family suffers. On the other hand, skimming across the top of the economy in future taxes is pretty linear: if I tax the rich an extra X % to pay for the jobs I create for the unemployed, the rich's productivity doesn't fall by a non-linear function of X. Therefore, I gain the difference, which is the extra productivity lost by the unemployed.This is what World War II did. The people who went to the army or into factories didn't in general come from other jobs, and therefore it didn't rob the economy of otherwise productive citizens. They were unemployed men and women (who didn't work at all previously). The government essentially paid for extra production without charging current production. If the government is in a position where it can buy the cost of production at the cost of only that production, it should do so.On the other hand, if the economy is in a stable equilibrium where the amount of people employed is at the right level based on consumption and need, then it hurts to artificially create jobs, because you're robbing potentially better production from an otherwise occupied sector. Simply citing "broken window fallacy" is an oversimplification.

WWII brought women into the workforce, which deflated job values because they were willing to do the same job for 3/5th the pay. Then they refused to cook and clean when they got off work, forcing us to bring in illegal immigrants to do the housework for pennies on the dollar. As a result we have latchkey kids raised by PEE WEE Herman who are now taking their confused understanding of the world into the voting booth and giving us people like Obama, an influx of illegals, uppidity women and a weakening tax base.So if you are going to accuse AK and 85 of being shallow, YOU SIR better go a little deeper to the reality of the problem.

[Jeepster80125 0]

Oh, you're right, it turns out that World War II didn't play a major role in bringing us out of the great depression. After all, if it wasn't for the army, all those people could have been back at home being jobless and living in Hoovervilles. It's the broken Hitler Fallacy!In reality, if the hurts the economy to have potentially productive members of the country out of work. Their potential production is being wasted. This is a non-linear effect: the longer they are out of the job, the more difficult it is to get a job, the less motivated they become, the more unemployment they collect, and the more their family suffers. On the other hand, skimming across the top of the economy in future taxes is pretty linear: if I tax the rich an extra X % to pay for the jobs I create for the unemployed, the rich's productivity doesn't fall by a non-linear function of X. Therefore, I gain the difference, which is the extra productivity lost by the unemployed.This is what World War II did. The people who went to the army or into factories didn't in general come from other jobs, and therefore it didn't rob the economy of otherwise productive citizens. They were unemployed men and women (who didn't work at all previously). The government essentially paid for extra production without charging current production. If the government is in a position where it can buy the cost of production at the cost of only that production, it should do so.On the other hand, if the economy is in a stable equilibrium where the amount of people employed is at the right level based on consumption and need, then it hurts to artificially create jobs, because you're robbing potentially better production from an otherwise occupied sector. Simply citing "broken window fallacy" is an oversimplification.

In your opinion, did cash4clunkers have the same effect as the stimulus? Obamacare?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

In your opinion, did cash4clunkers have the same effect as the stimulus? Obamacare?

Cash for Clunkers was an example of "Increase now, sacrifice later." It artificially created an increased market now with the effect of reducing car purchases after the program ends. It's different than what I said above about the stimulus.If one million American cars suddenly and all at once broke down and their engines went on fire, cash for clunkers would be a very good deal: it would help America get back to it's automobile ownership equilibrium. There would be a void of cars and people would have a need to get around. While that void would naturally restore itself, it would do so faster if the government gave incentives. And since owning cars helps the GDP by allowing for transport to jobs and in other obvious ways, it would be a net benefit.But that was not the case. We were in essence at auto equilibrium throughout the recession, so cash for clunkers was essentially like hitting a spring hard to the right and then having it spring back hard to the left. It's oscillatory motion.

[Balloon guy 158]

Cash for Clunkers was an example of "Increase now, sacrifice later." It artificially created an increased market now with the effect of reducing car purchases after the program ends. It's different than what I said above about the stimulus.If one million American cars suddenly and all at once broke down and their engines went on fire, cash for clunkers would be a very good deal: it would help America get back to it's automobile ownership equilibrium. There would be a void of cars and people would have a need to get around. While that void would naturally restore itself, it would do so faster if the government gave incentives. And since owning cars helps the GDP by allowing for transport to jobs and in other obvious ways, it would be a net benefit.But that was not the case. We were in essence at auto equilibrium throughout the recession, so cash for clunkers was essentially like hitting a spring hard to the right and then having it spring back hard to the left. It's oscillatory motion.

End of the day, cash for clunkers was just a way to waste money. The government ended up spending $3 billion to get people more in debt, causing used cars to come off the market and raising the prices on used cars. So the poor got shafted, the middle class got more in debt and the rich got subsidies.

[strategy 4]

End of the day, cash for clunkers was just a way to waste money. The government ended up spending $3 billion to get people more in debt, causing used cars to come off the market and raising the prices on used cars. So the poor got shafted, the middle class got more in debt and the rich got subsidies.

let's not forget that it also momentarily made the government's investment in/loans to automakers look better.

[Balloon guy 158]

let's not forget that it also momentarily made the government's investment in/loans to automakers look better.

There is that. If America was a dude trying to pick up a chick in a bar, for 1 month, we had hair on our chest and a gold chain with our astrological sign pendant hanging cool.

[strategy 4]

There is that. If America was a dude trying to pick up a chick in a bar, for 1 month, we had hair on our chest and a gold chain with our astrological sign pendant hanging cool.

nevermind that foreign automakers were the biggest beneficiaries of increased salesoh, and the struggling satellite radio industry got a boost as well!stimulus and car sales: they're connected, and they feed back to eachother

[Balloon guy 158]

nevermind that foreign automakers were the biggest beneficiaries of increased salesoh, and the struggling satellite radio industry got a boost as well!stimulus and car sales: they're connected, and they feed back to eachother

I owned some SIRI stock a while ago.What a dog.

[strategy 4]

I owned some SIRI stock a while ago.What a dog.

up almost 42% in the last year!

[Balloon guy 158]

up almost 42% in the last year!

Then it's only about 400% growth points away from the price I owned it in 07

[CaneBrain 95]

thought this was interesting given our recent discussions; bonus it includes nutball Michelle Bachman!http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/...on/#more-120130deep fried bacon???

[Balloon guy 158]

thought this was interesting given our recent discussions; bonus it includes nutball Michelle Bachman!http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/...on/#more-120130deep fried bacon???

Last time I was at the Minnesota State Fair, I tried the chocolate covered bacon.Surprisingly good in small doses.also saw the silly Al Franken for Senate booths and people staffing it who were all a bunch of nancy boys.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

Last time I was at the Minnesota State Fair, I tried the chocolate covered bacon.Surprisingly good in small doses.

Next time, bacon cupcakes:

[CaneBrain 95]

just.....wow.

[Balloon guy 158]

Pretty much impossible for anything with bacon to taste bad.Bacon is the perfect food.

[JoeyJoJo 18]