American Politics during the Obama Presidency

After reading here over several years, it strikes me that collectively you all could apply as a group and get hired as the core economics faculty at Arizona State or some similarly disreputable institute of mis-education!

I wonder how many of you even know Alan Greenspan has admitted King Laissez-Faire Economics has no clothes. He now goes so far as to acknowledge that tax cuts for the rich cause deficits, not economic growth. But I bet half the contributors here to whom the man was once a hero now say he must be suffering from early alzheimers.

Despite your cumulative elusive handle of either macro or microeconomics, I'll give credit where its due, you do know how to practice blogging onanism with great energy! I bet you feel spent after each time you share your essence with your fellow mongers.

Esten deserves credit for trying to face down all the oh-so certain free-marketers who dominate contributors to the forum, but if all of the mercantilist commenters here were professional economists and responsible for guiding decision makers at the Fed, or Treasury or in big Corporate boardrooms, there isn't a chica in BA who would be making a living. The world economy would be on its ass and all the guru mongers would be sitting hard on the ground trying to wiggle around enough to grab their own asses. Also, having made so many bad bets, they wouldn't have much disposable income to buy any ass.

I know personally you are all great guys, but as for your opinions you are "always sure, but seldom right".

[QUOTE=El Alamo]I don't know how many billions or trillions of dollars were spent on pork barrel projects intended to stimulate the economy. However, the number of projects that actually benefited the economy can probably be written on the back of a postage stamp. The rest of the money was spent on bueracratic nonsense and unneeded government employees whose contribution the economy was less than zero.[/QUOTE]If you don't know a simple fact like whether it was billions or trillions, then you haven't been reading the news carefully, which means you probably don't know how the money was spent. You should spend some time on the website which tracks the stimulus money, recovery.gov. You'll see plenty of worthwhile projects and 3/4 million jobs directly saved or created last quarter. A report last month put the total impact of the stimulus at about 3 million jobs. That report also noted it will help encourage $280 billion of investment by private industry and local governments.

If you think Republicans wouldn't have passed a stimulus if they had won the election, you are fooling yourself. There absolutely would have been a stimulus in 2009 no matter who was in power. All sorts of Republicans actually praised the stimulus money their districts received.

[QUOTE=El Alamo]Had those trillions of dollars been allocated to tax cuts and tax incentives to the private sector I would bet the ranch that we would not have the dismal, almost depressing, unemployment statistics we enjoy today and our national debt could be written at a single setting without your pen running out of ink[/QUOTE]It was billions not trillions. And I think you would lose your ranch. It is questionable how much tax cuts would have impacted unemployment in this recession. But there's no question it would have reduced tax revenues, adding further to the debt.

Take a look at Figure 1 in the link below. The Bush tax cuts, wars, and economic downturn account for almost all the projected deficit in the next 10 years. TARP, Fannie, Freddie and stimulus account for only a small fraction.

[url]http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036[/url]

El Alamo's post demonstrates just the kind of ignorance and deception that Republicans are counting on in the fall elections. The more Dems educate the public on the facts, the better they will do.

Esten,

Thanks for your reply. I have changed my position.

The Democrats will undoubtedly increase their majorities in the upcoming election. In fact, it is highly probable that the Republicans will not elect a single candidate. It will be a Democratic landslide and, of course, long before the election the unemployment rate will return to less than 4%, and with a little more pork from Big Brother, unemployment may disappear completely.

Thanks for enligtening me. You have made my day,

I am requesting an absentee ballot from your district so I can vote early and often for Senor Esten. This should guarantee that the national debt will never be able to be written at a single setting without your pen running out of ink.

I also have seen the light as well. Please disregard all my previous posts related to November. What was I thinking?

IALOTFLMAO!

Happy Mongering All. Toymann.

[QUOTE=El Alamo]Esten.

Thanks for your reply. I have changed my position.

The Democrats will undoubtedly increase their majorities in the upcoming election. The Republicans may not elect a single candidate. It will be a Democratic landslide and, of course, long before the election the unemployment rate will return to less than 4% gracias a Big Brother.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=El Alamo]Esten,

Thanks for your reply. I have changed my position.

The Democrats will undoubtedly increase their majorities in the upcoming election. In fact, it is highly probable that the Republicans will not elect a single candidate. It will be a Democratic landslide and, of course, long before the election the unemployment rate will return to less than 4% , and with a little more pork from Big Brother, unemployment may disappear completely.

Thanks for enligtening me. You have made my day,

I am requesting an absentee ballot from your district so I can vote early and often for Senor Esten. This should guarantee that the national debt will never be able to be written at a single setting without your pen running out of ink.[/QUOTE]Praise the lord!

Happy Day have returned!

Please pass the Kool-Aid.

[size=+2]Spend Baby Spend![/size]

[QUOTE=Punter 127][size=+2]Spend Baby Spend![/size][/QUOTE]More spending on tap next week thanks to Speaker Pelosi! $26 billion in state aid. No worries, the rich will help pay for it!

[QUOTE=El Alamo]Thanks for enligtening me. You have made my day,[/QUOTE]Anytime. That's what I'm here for.

But seriously, the party in power (Dems) will lose seats consistent with history. The real question is, how many? From what we've been hearing from the right about the 'American people', the 'worst president ever', and the pendulum swinging back, it should be a total wipeout. In this context I would regard anything less than Republicans retaking both chambers as a complete failure.

[QUOTE=Toymann]I also have seen the light as well. Please disregard all my previous posts related to November. What was I thinking?[/QUOTE]Hang on you can't do that! I want to know what you are going to buy me if Republicans don't retake both the House and Senate. I mean you aren't going to lose, so, just for fun. Maybe an all expenses paid night at Madahos?

[QUOTE=Esten]Hang on you can't do that! I want to know what you are going to buy me if Republicans don't retake both the House and Senate. I mean you aren't going to lose, so, just for fun. Maybe an all expenses paid night at Madahos?[/QUOTE]I am up for a little Madahos victory dance. Here is my terms. If the House and Senate stay Democrat then I get to treat you to an evening at Madahos. If the reverse occurs and the Republicans sweep then it's on like donkey kong at Madahos on YOU. If the house and congress split then its a draw and no harm, no Madahos. A very fair bet from my perspective as both the House and Senate are currently in your camp Esten. I throw down the guantlet at your feet. Only a pussy Democrat would run away from such a fair offer. Now we'll see if ya have the stomach for it fella. The ball is now in your court dude. Fight or flight the choice is yours.

Happy Mongering All. Toymann

[QUOTE=Toymann]I am up for a little madahos victory dance. Here is my terms. If the house and senate stay democrat then I get to treat you to an evening at Madahos. If the reverse occurs and the republicans sweep then it's on like donkey kong at madahos on YOU. If the house and congress split then its a draw and no harm no madahos. A very fair bet from my perspective as both the house and senate are currently in your camp Esten. I throw down the guantlet at your feet. Only a pussy democrat would run away from such a fair offer. Now we'll see if ya have the stomach for it fella. The ball is now in your court dude. Fight or flight the choice is yours. Happy Mongering All. Toymann[/QUOTE]As I see it, you have been crowing about a sweep, why are you straddling the line now?

[QUOTE=Esten]More spending on tap next week thanks to Speaker Pelosi! $26 billion in state aid. No worries, the rich will help pay for it! [/QUOTE]I'm not so sure that [I][b]$an Fran Nan[/i][/b] can "get'er done", but if she does it will just be another nail in the Democrats/incumbents coffin. (May all those blood sucking parasites RIP)

There's a groundswell of discontent with this administration and especially congress, and I think you're going to feel the earth move in November. If I'm right, and there's a good chance I am, [i][b]Queen Nancy[/i][/b] won't be Queen next year.

I do admit that two months of a lame duck Congress with her and Reid at the helm is very scary thought.

The left is now trying to frame the November elections in a new context. This would have anything less than the Republicans taking control of both houses as a Republican failure and an indication of how the country is behind BHO and his agenda. This is a winning argument just like the response to our disasterously high unemployment rate "it could be worse."

Control of the House has been in play for some time now. All 435 seats are up for election, of those 37 sitting members are retiring (eliminating for the most part House incumbency from those races) According to polling, there are 32 seats that are "toss ups" at the moment, with 201 and 202 "safe seats" for the Republicans and Democrats, respectively. Most of you guys can count and see that the House is clearly in play. Republican victory is not a sure thing.

The Senate is a different story altogether. Only 37 seats are up for election, of which only 8 are "toss ups." The Republicans and Democrats have 43 and 49 "safe seats," respectively. In order to regain the Senate, the Republicans need to win all 8 of those.

Even considering the national mood, Republicans winning control of both houses is a stretch. That said, the polling is likely missing a significant portion of the "Anger Vote" (my term) which I expect to be out in force, come November. This group includes Republicans that stayed home in 2008, as well as Democrats, Republicans and Independents that are truly pissed about the current state of the Nation. They are going to the polls to punish the people that they believe are responsible.

However, American voters have always been quick to criticize Congress and then reelect their local losers to both houses.

As always, winning in Washington can be a mixed bag. If the Republicans win either or both houses, in 2012, BHO will be blaming Republican-caused gridlock for all of the woes of the country. However, if the voters deliver one or both houses to the Republicans it will be a repudiation of BHO and his policies, above and beyond the usual off-year election bias against the party that controls the executive branch.

Therefore, I believe that most voters realize that regardless of whether the Republicans win one or both houses, they can't pass legislation without the signature of the Commie in Chief. Therefore, by voting for Republicans they are embracing gridlock (it was pretty good for Clinton) and a cessation of the CIC's agenda. We'll see in 2012 if the voters will remember how they felt in mid 2010.

By the way, the $26B package that Nancy is trying to get through is a give-way for local teachers and their union (or maybe it is the other way around) This is truly obscene since these people are paid by local governments and the Federal Govt payoff is clearly a bribe.

WW it is even worse than an open bribe to the teachers unions (noticed they have dropped the police and firefighters from the claim now) since there are no cuts in other spending to offset the "Stimulus II" bill it only adds to the debt.

States are prohibited from running deficits and cannot print their own money so the Obama Administration is going to do it for them. I am sure it will be "targeted" spending again, meaning the Blue States get it and the Red States get the finger again!

WW you are forgetting another important component of the upcoming mid-term elections beyond the "Angry" folks, motivation of the Republican and Democrat party bases. The Republican, Independent, and Conservative Democrat's can't wait to get to the polls to vote and are highly motivated, while the Democrat base for the most part is apathetic about the upcoming elections. Mid-term elections are usually low turnout affairs and this year the folks motivated to vote are against the current agenda pushed by Washington.

Esten, you are always hot to ask for documentation, where is the backup for all these "saved" jobs. What a BS hedge to claim "Saved Jobs", every time someone looks into these supposed "Saved" jobs they find more shenanigans than a barrel full of monkeys. I loved the one where they saved over a thousand jobs at one company – yea they didn't do anything but give a group of employees a raise and then called them "Saved" jobs. Didn't the White House take down the "Saved Jobs" web site after so many embarrassments resulted from the postings?

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]WW you are forgetting another important component of the upcoming mid-term elections beyond the "Angry" folks, motivation of the Republican and Democrat party bases. The Republican, Independent, and Conservative Democrat's can't wait to get to the polls to vote and are highly motivated, while the Democrat base for the most part is apathetic about the upcoming elections. Mid-term elections are usually low turnout affairs and this year the folks motivated to vote are against the current agenda pushed by Washington.[/QUOTE]Excellent point, many will stay home because of mood and lack of presidential selection on ballot.

[quote=]Esten, you are always hot to ask for documentation, where is the backup for all these "saved" jobs. What a BS hedge to claim "Saved Jobs", every time someone looks into these supposed "Saved" jobs they find more shenanigans than a barrel full of monkeys.[/QUOTE]Thank you, I forgot to call Esten on this flatulent expulsion. Even Democrats (the normal ones not the left wing loonies) are uncomfortable with the fictitious statistic of "saved or created." So, without Obamanomics, there would be another 3-4 million unemployed? Wow, I didn't realize that the brilliance of BHO spared us form unemployment of more than 12%. Please find at least one reputable economist to back you on this one.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]Thank you, I forgot to call Esten on this flatulent expulsion. Even Democrats (the normal ones not the left wing loonies) are uncomfortable with the fictitious statistic of "saved or created." So, without Obamanomics, there would be another 3-4 million unemployed? Wow, I didn't realize that the brilliance of BHO spared us form unemployment of more than 12%. Please find at least one reputable economist to back you on this one.[/QUOTE]Cut the Dems some slack. They're just taking a page out of the Kirchners' handbook on inflation -- if you don't like the numbers, fudge; if you still don't like the numbers, change the rules. So, the unemployment numbers consistently have been revised upward after the initial reports (the fudge) resulting in new rules to include jobs "created or saved." A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind, or something like that.

Always remember: It's okay for liberals to do this. Just ask Daily KOS about their polls. [url]http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/dailykos_poll_fraud.html[/url]

What do you expect these folks to do? They don't have the facts on their side, and sticking to the facts makes for a rather dull discussion anyway.

WW & Stan, I almost forgot the really good example of this, in June Obama was trumpeting the creation of 63,000 jobs, but on Friday they had to revise that number down a "little" like to 35,000. Wow you only over counted by 45% surly that is within the margin of error or considered by this administration as not a material event.

I think Fox was the only one to report it and none of the main stream media. I even went to the Bureau of Labor Statistics website to check and sure enough it was true. These guys are great at "fudging" (can you really call 45% fudging?) the numbers up then quietly correcting them a month later hoping no one notices.

WW regarding your bet with Esten, hey since he has been beating the drum about "normal" losses during the mid terms I think your offer is fair. You win if the Republicans take both houses, Esten wins if they don't take both houses and it's a tie if they only take the House.

Just my 2 cents big guy.

Will be down in Oct. For a week, if you are in town let get a drink.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]Excellent point, many will stay home because of mood and lack of presidential selection on ballot.

Thank you, I forgot to call Esten on this flatulent expulsion. Even Democrats (the normal ones not the left wing loonies) are uncomfortable with the fictitious statistic of "saved or created." So, without Obamanomics, there would be another 3-4 million unemployed? Wow, I didn't realize that the brilliance of BHO spared us form unemployment of more than 12%. Please find at least one reputable economist to back you on this one.[/QUOTE]I know that you like to beat up on Obama and Esten, but what makes you think that the joblessness would be any better under any administration. The world economy is a different landscape now, and the good ole USA is not competitive and dominant in many areas anymore. Most Americans are in denial, and the politicians are not willing to risk their position by telling like it is.

So while you and Esten are provoking and entertaining each other, gridlock is the name of the the game in the Capitol. Naturally, things have to get worse before it get better.