Then the researchers need to take a look at the recent Australian election.

The outgoing government went from early 2007 to August 2010.

1) Despite the GFC, the government piloted Australia through that time and avoided any official recession

2) unemployment peaked at 5.8% and is now down to 5.3%

3) despite one of the largest stimulus packages worldwide, government finances will return to surplus in 2012/13

4) debt will peak then at 6% of GDP

5) debt predicted to be eliminated in 2014/15

6) growth over the last 12 months was 3.3%

7) that's despite the fact that official interest rates have already been increased four times to 4.5%

That's a reasonably competent performance, right?

But despite all this the opposition election campaign had some considerable success in pushing the argument that the outgoing government was "the worst we have ever had" and had mired the country in awful debt.

In the election of 2 weeks ago the government lost 22% of its seats in parliament and the election was a dead heat with 72 seats each (was previously 88 to 57)

I'm afraid I can't share your belief in the rationality of the electorate and the ineffectiveness of campaigning. In fairness, a couple of months ago I would have agreed with you and even argued that Australians could never throw out a government that had performed so competently through the GFC (a visiting Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Lauriate in economics, described it as "the best government performance of any industrilaised nation). But I was (almost) wrong (we have a dead heat but the government may still be able to cobble together a minority government with the Greens and independants).

Man, Mac- you just made me jealous to have that sort of government

SI

We may not have it anymore :eek: We may have, as Prime Minister, Phoney Abbott, formerly known as the Mad Monk, who thinks the internet is something to do with ladies' hairdressing and has an economics degree that we beleive came in a cornflakes packet.

On the other hand we do have Rupert Murdoch who owns roughly half of the Australian newspapers all of which, bar one, ran a Fox News style anti-government campaign and advised their readers to vote the government out on election day.

He'd still be among them because contrary to what people like to spout, the economy isn't the only thing that matters to a great many people.

Hell, it's no more than one of my top 4-5 (more equal than some of the other perhaps) issues and I'm probably one of the most straight forward "what's mine is mine" and "there's no such thing as enough money, much less too much" people you'll ever meet.

Not a lot of voter rationality there, though, Steve. Some 400,000 (around 6 million in American numbers) abandoned the government because they weren't able to push the carbon trading bill through the Senate - because the Greens opposed it, not once but three times !!!

So who did these people vote for - the Greens! How daft is that? :rolleyes:

I should point out that I've never voted for this party ever before in my life. But the world hit a brick wall a couple of years ago, Australia jumped it effortlessly and is now growing healthily while the rest of the world is still struggling through the rubble. That's got to be worth a second term by any rational standards.

And Rudd was a prat anyway, overwhelmed by hubris, his party knew that in spades, and the Aussie population were just waking up to it.

Not so much to appease them but to avoid legislation that would have a severe impact on industry through electricity prices. It wasn't good enough for the Greens - so they stopped it altogether! Government has to act responsibly but that has never been a problem for the Greens.


Gillard (the exiting Prime Minister) did warn disaffected ALP voters that a protest vote for the Greens would let Abbott in. It's not rocket science and was probably the only thing she got right in the entire campaign ;)

But going back to my original point: having very good economic figures does not guarantee you a second term - it simply gets forgotten - and it's perfectly possible to overcome the good news with an effective negative campaign. You guys value the good numbers because you suffer some very bad ones. Had you experienced good ones then, like the Australians, you would probably have ignored them and concentrated on the failed (relatively) health reforms etc.

Your average voter, as Churchill described, is a little bit like that ("the strongest argument against democracy is an hour with your average voter") :)

Nice for the election, should help with some votes if the Dems can agree on the approach. Not alot of details yet. My vote is to give it all to small businesses.
FOXNews.com - Officials: Obama to Link Tax Plan to Hiring

I would never want to be president. Look at the difference of two years:



vs.



He looks about 10-12 years older in just two years.

I wonder how much of that is makeup/hair dye

None. That job ages you VERY quickly. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

Bush before and after pictures are kindof similar and Clinton you could really see it.

SI

It may age you quickly, but with the incredible medical care they receive they also live longer than the average male.

That or they're secret lizard men immune to human disease.

What a headache. Free speech vs political realities.

FOXNews.com - Afghans Protest U.S. Church's Plan to Burn Koran on 9/11

Little surprised to see Rand Paul's numbers increasing given his PR goofs. This is a terrible omen for the Democrats to see a guy who wouldn't win under normal conditions increasing his lead over the Dem candidate.

Rand Paul Leads in Kentucky Polling - Washington Wire - WSJ

The rest of the world needs to be educated enough to realize that it's not like the 18 year-old in the last paragraph said, that it's just a bunch of looney individuals doing this.

Barring that we should just pass a law forbidding desecration of any religion's holy books I guess. I dunno.

Wow, your easy. Why not just ban anything mean?

Define "Any religion"..

Does the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may you be touched by his noodly appendage) get the same benefit as Islam? Does this touch on Government seperation between church and state?

Seriously? We should change our fundamental rights of speech so as not to offend the easily offended? Maybe the far-right has a point about certain things.

I think that any private individual/group should have the First Amendment right to burn whatever "holy" book they want.

The government should not be in the business of burning Korans. But it should also not be in the business of telling me that I can't burn them.

I think DT was being ironic.

Amazing how this guy can get so much publicity for a small event that probably won't happen due to fire code violations. Scream loud enough and someone's bound to put you on TV.

Yeah - I was being ironic. Or exasperated...or I dunno.

The nutters burning the books and the nutters blowing shit up should just find their own little island in the middle of nowhere and leave everyone else alone. :)

But then how could they convince the rest of us of the righteous way to the promised land? :)

What does this have to do with President Obama?

Probably just anticipating the insertion of his two cents worth on the subject.
(unless of course Rahm managed to lock him in his office)

He also wants to spend another $50 billion in infrastructure spending.

Obama to propose massive rebuilding package - Politics - White House - msnbc.com

I dunno - this is more a catchall "current events and politics thread" now i guess. and insofar as it relates to islam and our relations with islamic nations an argument could be made.

Well considering that the vast majority of economists believe the first stimulus wasn't big enough...it's a start...

He'll have to deal with the political/military/propoganda ramifications in Afghanistan if this escalates. Called a muslim in this country, called an infidel in Afghanistan, can't win.

Massive?

Both this and the payroll tax are middlin policies and terrible politics. But that seems to be the norm from this crew.

Yep. "Oh we're afraid to go big so we're just going to plop right in the middle and fail."

Imagine if instead of a holiday for businesses on the payroll tax the holiday went to workers. It would be better policy in a demand crisis like we're in and it would force the GOP to vote against a tax cut for every worker in America. It would probably be too late to show up in paychecks before November, but extra money in people's paychecks also isn't bad politics.

Most economists meaning.... Paul Krugman? As he seems to be the left economist most on the side of the old Rovian statement of "deficits don't matter" (which is great to say up until the point that they do start to matter - say hi to Greece).

Considering that the chances of a double dip recession are very small:

Potential for Double-Dip Recession Seems Small - NYTimes.com

I don't think we necessarily need to go full on we need one more $1 trillion stimulus!!1!! Is the growth slow? Yes. Is it cause for panic? Only if you are thinking more about the political short term than the economic long term.

However, I do think an upgrade to infrastructure is a VERY good place to spend money for future economic growth.

So, yeah, I'd say $50 mil is just right about now.

I've heard that the chances of a double-dip are a lot higher than that (say 33% or so)

Any many more economists than just Krugman have said it was too small.

You're mistaken that Krugman believes deficits don't matter. He's specifically said just the opposite, but in this demand crisis he also believes that we need something to spur the flow of capital. Growth is way too slow to get out of the unemployment crisis in any reasonable amount of time and there's very good reason to worry that growth will further slow as stimulus funds slow.

Long term I think deficits matter a lot, it's why I was opposed to the large structural deficits of the Bush years, but in a demand crisis everything tells me we need to increase employment or we'll be chasing tax dollars from a shrinking work force. As long as hundreds of billions of dollars are drained from the budget through lower tax revenue balancing the budget means further reducing the money flowing into the economy. Right now we need more demand.

I'd differ from Krugman in that I do think we need some sort of grand bargain for deficit reduction. We can't solve the long term outlook without a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. The problem is I don't think the GOP will agree to any tax increases which means there's no realistic way to balance the budget.

Here's the problem.

I'm all about some infrastructure, but this rebuild every fucking road and bridge and highway at once project is annoying. Plus it is a bit bullshit how some state lie ohio can not properly maintain their roads(from my perspective) and now are seemingly redoing every stretch with govt money.

Or maybe they love lower taxes because Ohio politcians are just a bunch of corrupt crooks.

Ohio is the poster child for why term limits don't fix legislative problems.

No doubt. On the other hand, using a 1930's style jobs programs to revive an early 21st-century economy might have its problems. Back in the 1930s, building lots of roads was likely to have more of an immediate and beneficial economic impact because 1) those were the sorts of manual-labor jobs that the unemployed had once had, and 2) the US manufacturing sector was so huge, the money spent by those taking the jobs circulated within the US economy.

Now, though, we have a service- and information-based economy and a small manufacturing sector. Most of those who lost their jobs in the last few years were not roadbuilders, and unless the economic situation turns so dire that they are willing to abandon all hope of remaining in the middle class, they are not going to take jobs as road-builders. And even if they do take those jobs, much of the money that they spend will go for manufactured products made outside the US.

Maybe Krugman is right, and the reason why the stimulus has not revived the economy is that it wasn't big enough. Maybe, though, it's because, in a service-dominated economy that imports its manufactured goods, traditional Keynesian expenditure on infrastructure will get you better infrastructure, but not a more general economic revival. Can't say that I know the answer to that question.

Most economists think the stimulus did exactly what was expected, raise GDP by a few points. The problem was that Obama's own team said there was at least a 2.5 trillion gap in output and that was filled by 800 bn in stimulus, 40% of which were tax cuts. 500 bn spread over two years just wasn't enough, even if it was all spent on high multiplier expenditures(which it wasn't).

Our current recession is largely a housing decline with severe unemployment for those without a college degree. For those with a college degree it hasn't been anything worse than a normal recession. The undereducated, though, are really suffering and those people could be put to work on roads or fixing schools or park maintenance, etc. It won't happen instantly and they'll be hiccups, but we have a large undereducated workforce waiting to be given jobs. We can't fix everything, but there is work that needs doing and people who need work.

Now do you actually have numbers for this or are you talking out of your ass again?

Part of the problem with the infrastructure spending is that it has been staggered. I sell to companies in the construction sector and they are needing more work. The problem lies in that some companies get the work, but have plenty of time to get the work done. The result is that they are not hiring any new workers because their current labor force can get the work done.

The other side of the equation is that unlike the past, we do not have money circulating amongst ourselves. Since manufacturing has moved overseas, we are sending our dollars offshore. The result is deficit spending is not a multiplier, it is merely additive. The fact is, unless we produce more wealth with our services and developments, we will run a deficit and things will get worse unless we bring more manufacturing jobs back. Unfortunately, we are not in a manufacturing friendly environment.

zing

Well here's a chart I found at Federal State Local Public Spending United States 2010 - Charts Tables History . Sources can be found at the site.

Year	GDP-US $ billion	Total Spending -total $ billion
2000	9951.5	3240.18
2001	10286.2	3434.00
2002	10642.3	3697.75
2003	11142.1	3930.63
2004	11867.8	4127.66
2005	12638.4	4397.46
2006	13398.9	4698.31
2007	14077.6	4924.61
2008	14441.4	5335.25
2009	14258.2	6034.60
2010	14623.9	6412.71

Bingo. The Stimulus was sold as a OMG if we don't do this we're all going to Hell in a hand basket and it's Great Depression II!! Well, we spent a significant amount and we didn't go into a depression. Job accomplished.

I don't think a $50 bil infrastructure bill is a bad idea, but I also don't believe that going significantly more is a good idea, especially since it seems any tightening our belts in the future with respect to deficits isn't going to happen.

If we don't go more then it's going to be a hell of a lot longer and more painful climb out of the economy that we're in now.

Now from Petraeus ...

Pastor weighing plans to burn Qurans amid U.S. warnings - CNN.com

Here's just one article on the chances of a double dip. I've seen more, but this was tops on one of my homepage-tabs this morning.


http://www.pionline.com/article/2010...TSUB/309069972

$200B + $100B + 50B = $350B so far. Be interesting to see how this plays out in the election.

Obama slated to introduce new business tax cut - Sep. 7, 2010

I'm not sure how this statement came about, but if Petreus issued it without being questioned, he needs to shut the hell up. I think this guy is a jackass, but he has a right to burn books. I'm tired of the, "If you do X the terrorists win" line of argument.

I'd prefer acknowledging that in the US even jackasses have a right to free speech.

This is the kind of thing where I agree with Warhammer. I don't think deducting costs for equipment purchased from overseas manufacturers is really going to help much. Plus, will this kind of tax break do anything to spur demand? The problem isn't a lack of supply.

Do you think he's wrong? I don't see him saying that anyone should punish the guy for doing it, just that it will make the war harder -- he's looking at it from his perspective. I agree that even jackasses have a right to free speech, but that nuance is going to be hard to sell in that part of the world -- after all, it's not that easy for people to understand HERE.

I'd go further than that and say that if Petraeus thinks this will cost lives on the ground (and that's not a hard connect to make, and I'll take his word for it - look at the demonstrations that have already taken place), he has a duty to speak out about it. Free speech is a right but I don't see anything wrong of informing people of the potential consequences. All three of us seem to agree this guy is an idiot but can do whatever the hell he wants. Not sure what Petraeus did wrong here. Don't see his message as "the terrorists win", at all.

Actually, free speech is a right that you give up when you join the military (at least insofar as it relates to a lot of things, this included).

I sure hope those book-burners know what they might be getting themselves (more importantly, the soldiers in the field and other American citizens in Muslim countries) into if they continue their plans.

We're talking about people with limited access to Western media. I'm pretty sure their own religious leaders would use videos/images of the book burning to fuel the fire even more. For many of these folks, an American burning a Q'uran just might be the image that they will associate with America in the very near future.

You think these book-burners are rational enough to think that through? :lol:

see below

I just think our best long term strategy is to be proud of our freedoms instead of always urging people to think about what extremists might think or do. Plus, I don't think his statement is going to be at all effective. A backchannel private message might have been a better idea.

This is one of those I hate the message but I'll fight for his right to say it moments. I'd like to see the freedom to be a jackass celebrated as one of the things that makes us strong.

dola

And I wish they'd stop putting this asshat on television. If he gets no free publicity this isn't a big deal.

I'd be more concerned on what the impact of a book-burning would be to the more moderate, mainstream Muslims all over the world.

Here's another reason why a business tax credit for new equipment isn't likely to do much good.



We already have a metric fuckton of spare capacity. What we need is demand.

I agree - I wish the media/society would get over their obsession with trying to make extremists seem 'common' ... but its unlikely because it causes discussion and interest.

I especially loathe talking heads that want to lecture this guy on how irresponsible he is being. No more irresponsible than you dumbasses that keep broadcasting his message to the world for free.

Obama having a resounding speech on Labor Day to a large group of workers where he declares a new 50 billion spending package is probably not the best way to win the hearts and minds of moderates in an election year. Now if he is moving into "fuck the haters mode" I can get behind that. I'm actually pretty inclined to vote for him in 2012. But, shit, can he possibly learn at some point that carrying yourself as Hugo Chavez is not going to accomplish the types of things that he wants to.

Very good points. I would say even more than just a housing decline this is a credit decline.

In fact, i would say the lack of real time debt is one reason college grads are doing ok.

what the stimulus package is doing is what Americans were doing for the last 20 years: spending money you don't have now because you assume your job, house, and 401k will keep rising.

as irresponsible as the gov't is with its spending it is nothing compared to the out of control consumer credit spending of the last 20 years. and like the gov't it is the sound (rich) people that can weather their debt (and maybe turn it into a good) while the non-rich foreclose and go bankrupt. and i think that's where this delicate balancing act tipped.

this leaves obama is the hard place of doing everything but what is needed (but shouldn't): "forgive" debt to lower and middle class in the same way he "forgave" the banks. in a way, these people are too small to fail. of course this cannot or should not happen, but that guarantees this will be a slow contraction as these people get out of their personal hell. which really just makes all this stimulus and tax cut talk even more tiresome.

this is really the era of the great rehab. people are learning for the first time in many generations that they can only spend as much as they earn and the price of something does not mean how much its worth.

I think Obama may go somewhat the way of Clinton, in having a strong opposition helps him out in the polls. In Clinton's example, the Republicans got the majority in both houses, made Clinton go more for the middle, and showed him as a far preferable option to some of the far right in Congress and led to an easy re-election.

I'm pretty sure the researchers were specifically looking at U.S. elections.

Your example from Australia, to me, shows that there are considerable ideological differences between the electorates of different countries.


Another "good" one is Bush Senior either between 1988 and 1992 or, even more devastating, between 1980 and 1992.

Actually, the only times I begin to doubt the importance of freedom of speech is when people (on either side of the spectrum) use it specifically and willfully to be jackasses. At some point the negative effect of an utter lack of civility outweighs the positive of freedom of speech.

However, I'd still oppose any effort to legislate this.

That's not how I remember it. A strengthening economy and Clinton's defeat of Gingrich in the 1995 budget battle convinced most of the GOP bench to sit the primaries out. By the time Dole got around to running a lackluster campaign, a further strengthening economy combined with Clinton's superior campaigning skills made the race a foregone conclusion.

Even so, Clinton got 49.2% of the vote, with Dole at 40.7 and Perot at 8.4.

So, I'd argue that Dole didn't lose because he was too far right for moderate voters, but because people generally had an optimistic outlook in 1996 and that usually translates to an incumbent victory. The same may yet happen for Obama if the economy can demonstratively turn around in 2011 and 2012, but this seems increasingly unlikely.

Another potential Obama victory could come from the GOP nominating someone who truly is too far right for moderates. The analog in 1996 would have been the GOP nominating Pat Buchanan, in my opinion.

Anyway, sorry for that bit of historical nit-picking. Back to the thread's usual petty arguing. :D

Dole was tarred with the brush of Gingrich, however. He represented Congress, even though he was a moderate budget hawk (though decided to pander with a 15% tax cut).

I'm afraid the GOP could shut down the government, kill SS and healthcare, force prayer in public schools and make homosexuals wear "Fear Me I'm Gay! t-shirts, and still win the White House if unemployment hasn't significantly improved.

This.

As much as we like to think that the politics matters at something more than the margins, history demonstrates that, thus far, unemployment and real income growth are the things that decide whether incumbents get re-elected.

Now, could things be different this time? Sure. But I'll go with assuming that the model will remain as it has been until something shows me differently.

That's why I don't just laugh off the crazies in the GOP. If the economy stays stagnant they could be running the country. Is it really impossible to see Palin winning if the economy is still in the crapper?

This fucking terrifies me. It's why I'm hoping I can get an escape-plan ready before that time.

As a white male, do I need an escape plan? I'm not a Christian so maybe that answer is yes.

Palin won't get you, but the farm is a dangerous place.

But as one article I read earlier today (something from AP about repeal-and-replace) had a quote on that (paraphrasing here), if the GOP does take control of Congress and doesn't repeal Obamacare but instead eventually funds it, then they're finished as a national party.

Point being, by whatever means necessary, including a government shutdown if need be, they have to kill Obamacare one way or another. Failure to do so means they'll never again be trusted with enough votes to matter.

Related to your quoted snippet above in the sense that I believe at least a partial shutdown is a very real possibility if BO decides to dig in his heels and veto spending plans that defund his healthcare package.

People still have lower opinions of the GOP than the Dems but they're poised to have a big year. Even if they don't defund they aren't going to be finished as a national party. There are only two options and a whole lot of people are dead set against one of the two.

Howard Dean on Olberman (talking about the planned Koran burning):

"It started really with Nixon's Southern strategy but the Republican Party has become the party that appeals to hatred. And I don't think the majority of Republicans are haters, but there is a significant hate-wing of the Republican Party that includes the talk show hosts like glen beck, rush limbaugh, etc. and they don't dare cross them. For a long time we thought that FOX worked for the Republican Party, now we know that FOX really runs the Republican Party."

I'm a white male too. But (horrors) I'm an atheist. And I don't think I could bring myself to live under the fundamentalist-theocratic-right-wing, bigoted, hate-state that would seemingly result.

That's okay though, we really wouldn't want you to stick around anyway :D

There's plenty of unused "escape plans" out there designed by democrats who never have the balls to actually use them. I'm sure one of those will work fine

Or I could use one of the old Republican ones douchebag. :p

You know - I'm often comforted by the fact that you and your kind are rapidly aging, and your ranks are not being replaced nearly as fast as you're dying off.

It can't happen soon enough IMO.

You're not going anywhere, no matter who's elected. It's a little dramatic to claim otherwise - that you'll skip town if your guy (who you once claimed you wouldn't vote for in the primaries if he backed off the public option) doesn't win.

We're also raising a new generation, one that's going to learn from the mistakes we made by compromising our principles to try to tolerate the intolerable. They'll learn from our errors. edit to add: Plus, the large number of us who remain are rapidly reaching the point where we're going to take "by any means necessary" much more literally.

LOL. Howard Dean, Keith Olbermann, and MSNBC talking about hatred is something akin to the Yankees talking about the Red Sox massive payroll.

The FOX News argument is getting old.

Looking at attitudes among youth, apparently you aren't raising enough of them.

It doesn't take many to control the sheep & the rank idiots. There's more to it than the numbers game.

At least if you're raising them they'll die early from second hand smoke.

Who's to say I'll vote for him in the primaries?

And I might not use that escape plan now, but it might be nice to have for the future was my point (see my points in the thread talking about retirement). In case things go far down an unpalatable path. And it wouldn't be bad to have a nice island retirement-setup that I could use whenever I wanted. You're right though...it is a bit overly-dramatic. I don't think I'd leave RIGHT AWAY, but certainly at some point I'd begin to consider it more seriously.

LOL - well played.

We really can't blame Jon for thinking there are a rising tide of them. He lives in a tiny little piece of the country that is (for the most part - excepting a small percentage of folks), ass-backwards and ignorant.

I'm having a hard time deciding if you are angry, passionate or just bored.

And Democrats have done the same thing with the rich and other groups. Partisian politics is based on hate. Both sides take their base and just spew hate to draw in support.

:confused:

I had no idea hay bales were so heavy! 600 kilograms! :eek:


I'd love to see a Gingrich-style overreach by the likely incoming GOP majority class. Of course, unlike 1996, maybe this time the right will successfully draft a "white knight" (i.e. Palin) of their own for 2012, and we'll finally know if there are still enough people in the center and on the left to defeat that kind of lunacy, which leads us to....


It would be interesting to find out how many people have done this, especially since both 2004 and 2008 represented real nadirs for the losing sides, but I'm going to assume the numbers are still small.

The juxtaposition of 2004 and 2008 probably explains why it doesn't really happen. There's always a real hope that "your" side will get back into power. Heck, in two years we've gone from utter hopelessness on the right to triumphalism.

I don't think people start to leave until there's an extended and consistent series of victories by one side over another, including related legislative success.

Not for political but for job reasons, I looked into it. It's kindof a pain to emigrate into a first world country. And by "kindof a pain", I mean- you need a company to sponsor you for a work visa but when I looked internally at the giant multi-national company I worked for and a couple of others I could work for in my field, they only would allow you to apply for work in those countries if you could already work there.

SI

+1 and I really can't stand the liberal hand wringing on this- I was watching Olbermann last night for a couple of minutes and he was almost taking the "if you don't do X, the terrorists win" that was so 5 years ago and GOP. Yes, it was more nuanced than that, which is to say, it was this intellectual combo platter of "burning koran is legal", "it's probably not a good idea", and "IT ENDANGERS TROOPS" but the emphasis on the last point was fairly strong and over the top.

SI