I'm amazed how many people expect to be taken seriously when lack of proper sentence form and cursing are a major part of their posts. I rarely respond to you of late because you're so full of piss and vinegar over a simple political discussion. If it riles you up this much, you should probably look for another hobby. Heart surgeons are salivating after reading your post.

That was true during the election. Unfortunately for those that bought into Obama's message, they're now suffering from buyer's regret now that they see what they voted into office. It's a hard lesson, but one that many naive voters needed to learn. Change isn't always best and promises are often broken once the votes are cast.

I'm a huge fan of the Bill Maher HBO series. I found his commentary at the end of the show to be indicative of what many independents and moderates on both sides of the aisle feel at this point. It was reprinted as an editorial in the LA Times.

Enough with the Obamathon - Los Angeles Times

Seriously, MBBF, I'm wondering if you realize how stupid this makes you look?

You assert a reporter is left leaning
Someone asks how is he left leaning.
You link to an article and say that proves it.
People ask how that article proves it.
You say if someone can't see it, then they're stupid.
Someone suggests you cited the Cato institute.
You say it was someone else that cited them.
Soemone links to a post where you cited the Cato institute.
You say they cuss too much and use bad grammar.

Dude, you are the jbmagic of political threads.

Often, the argument is about me. It's a great diversion to avoid talking about the administration.

1. I did not post that article to make any reference to which way he leans. That article was to back up my claims that quotes were used without citations.

2. You have every right to believe whatever you want about Mr. Zakaria.

3. Flasch is a good person.

4. Flere used a source that cited Cato. I'm well aware that I have referenced Cato as well. It's interesting that no one objected when Cato criticized the GOP, but it was hell in a handbasket when they backed them up.

5. I stand by my statement that anyone that curses to make a point needs to find a better way to make that point.

I don't see the buyer's remorse. He has an approval rating over 60%. Where are you getting your data from?

His approval rating and the approval of his policies differ greatly. Feel free to post both of them.

So you're saying everyone is upset with what he has done, but approve of him still? Would that work in reverse? Like if everyone loved his policies, would he have a low approval rating?

Believe it or not, MBBF is right. Polls are starting to show that Obama is still very popular but people are starting to disagree with some (if not a lot) of what he's doing.

He is the celebrity president. He's a tough guy not to like. I hate everythign about every policy he has, don't trust him politically but I can't help but like him.

Approval rating is never based on policies. It's based on public perception, popularity, and the presentation of the president by the press. (how about that alliteration?)

I don't think people agree with all his policies, but I do believe they feel it's necessary. I disapprove of bailouts, but I also believe neither President had much of a choice in the matter. It was necessary to keep the economy afloat. Ultimately, if his policies fail then his approval rating will take a major hit.

I disagree that approval rating is not based on policies. Bush had a low one because people realized the Iraq War was a farce and the disaster Katrina relief was. Clinton had a high one in his Presidency due to a strong economy. Reagan finished with a high one as people believed his policies helped end the Cold War and get the country back on track economically.

If anything, Bush was extremely likeable. He was the President you wanted to have a beer with. A guy who would rather spend a weekend on his ranch than a 5-star hotel. I don't doubt that perception and popularity have an impact, but it's ultimately the policies and the consequences that they have that decide the approval rating.

And my comment was directed at "buyers remorse". Obama would still crush McCain if they had another election today.

MBBF, how could you?

Gallup polled on seven different factors. Out of those seven, four got approval higher than his election percentage.

Foreign Affairs - 59
Economy - 55
Terrorism - 55
Middle East - 55

N. Korea - 47
Deficit - 46
Spending - 45

Only deficit and spending had higher disapproval numbers than McCain's election percentage (48/51). There's some discontent regarding spending/deficit, but where do you see a lot of buyer's remorse?

I don't understand why deficit, spending, and economy are separate categories.

I think we really start seeing some buyer's remorse when gas creeps back up to $3.00 -$3.50 per gallon, inflation starts to really rear its head sometime next year, and unemployment hovers around 10%.

If unemployment remains high, you aren't going to see the hyperinflation people are talking about. Unemployment helps curb inflation.

I'm rather confident in guys like Bernanke who are student of this stuff and feel they have the weapons to ensure inflation doesn't get out of hand. I think economists have learned from the mistakes of previous eras.

talk about strawmen.

What?! His approval ratings are enormous! Once again youre full of shit.

ROFLMAO, you just did this to me!

Bill Maher is wrong a lot of time but also right a lot of time and typically entertaining. I loved this line


SI

You guys do realize that your agruements with each other are completely uninteresting to the rest of the readers in this thread? So you both think the other is full of shit and they don't appreciate any of the other side's point of view. We already know that... about both of you.

EDIT: That was obviously intended for Flasch and MBBF, not sterling ice.

You know, that sounds an awful lot like Bubba. Pretty affable guy in even the face of a giant scandal and loaded with charisma. But at the end of the day, pretty much a moderate trying to keep both sides happy.

SI

I couldn't agree more. I'd LOVE it if others would stop making it about me and more about the topic at hand. Perhaps you could talk the rest of them into it. It's getting very petty and juvenile at this point. I'll stop responding to the flames at this point to respect your point of view.

I will continue to point out (or be a part of exposing) when MBBF (or anyone in a POL thread) is hypocritical (like the Short Bus stuff), continue to ask him to backup of his claims, point out when claims dont meet smell tests, continue to point out when his assertions and predictions turn out to be wrong, continue to not be shocked by Faux-shock, I will also continue to make my own opinions on topics known. Feel free to put me on your ignore list or avoid having to actually back up what you say.

Edit: That last sentence had part for everyone and part for you.

Drop the friggin' martyr act. In just about every topic you post (politics, basketball, video games, etc.), it always seems to get the point where you whine that the discussion is about you. To most people that would possibly be a clue that their approach or style possibly needs to change when it happens so repeatedly. Your act is becoming tiresome.

Agreed, but then again I didn't delve into the questions. Maybe it makes more sense if you look at all the individual responses.

I think all Presidents try to portray image to others. For Obama, it's trying to be the average Joe who wants to head out to the local burger joint and eat amongst the people. I think toward in Bush's second term there was a big disconnect from the people and him. He didn't want to be seen as much when his approval numbers were down and we didn't get the photo-ops like we had in the first term.

While I like Maher a lot and agree with him about the ridiculous media attention Obama has received, I don't think looking for positive attention is exclusive to him. I do remember a big photo-op awhlie back.

Unemployment is already near double digits. The rapid rise in oil prices, combined with a dollar that is being devalued because of all the new debt the government is saddling this nation with have reignited fears of inflation. If current policies continue, I think we'll see high unemployment rate of 7-9% and double digit inflation within the next 2-3 years.

Also if the economists had learned from their mistakes, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now. I'm convinced nobody really learns from history...we simply think we're superior and more knowledgeable than those who preceeded us and then proceed to repeat it.

The more I think about it, I'm not so sure inflation is really going to be a big issue. Sure, in the past, whenever a government has had a spike in spending, there has been a related rise in the inflation figure. But in the past, most governments have had more control over their country's money supply that what the Fed has now. For the past few years the derivatives market had been adding money to the system at a much faster clip and much greater amount than the figures spent on the various bailouts and stimulus packages. So although the government is adding a ton more money to the economy, it is nowhere near the amount the private sector had been creating over the past 6 to 8 years. So overall the rate in growth of the money supply is much slower than it has been in recent years.

I agree about the inflation. But I don't see current policies continuing for that long. The current policies (i.e. massive spending) are a response to the greatest recession since the Great Depression. It would be bizarre for the government to enact a stimulus every year, even when the private sector begins to pick back up.

FWIW, I strongly doubt that we will have double digit inflation within three years.

Also, just for discussion sake, I am not sure who in the country is against Obama who was not against him from the start. FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Obama Approval Rating Exceeds 50% in States Containing 445 Electoral Votes

I take solace in the fact that many of the "experts" predicting the doom and gloom of hyperinflation were the ones that didn't think housing was a problem or that our economy was on the brink of collapse a couple years ago (Art Laffer).

I think there is a chance we'll see high inflation. I do think the high unemployment numbers will help temper that, as well as the deflationary state of our housing market. Ultimately though, the threat is and was deflation that we had to worry about. That is what we had in the Great Depression and that is what Japan dealt with during the Lost Decade. That was and is a much bigger problem to us. I think they made an effort to curb deflation by having us end up with some inflation. I don't know how you can fault Bush or Obama for that.

I do think economists know more than they did back then. I think what Paulson, Bernanke and others did was rather remarkable. They saved the economy from the brink of utter disaster. I also don't know how you can blame economists and people in the Treasury and Federal Reserve for this crisis. It was greedy crooks that did this, and incompetent politicians who felt a hands-off approach was best.

But I guess what I don't get is what you expect from our Presidents during this collapse? Did you want Bush and Obama to not save the banks? Did you not want the Fed to lower interest rates and stave off massive deflation? It seems they were all backed into a corner with few options. The best option will be some inflation that will hopefully be kept under control. Seems much better than the alternatives.

I don't understand how you can take that much money out of the economy (the end of the stimulus), without suffering another significant recession. The only alternative is making the stimulus permanent.

The hope is that by the time the stimulus wears off, the economy would have gotten itself out of the recession and the private sector growth would make up for what the government was spending.

I don't think Dubya touches Obama or Clinton when it comes to charisma, charm, and ability to sell. I think the three previous presidents all are, or try to be, down-to-earth when it comes to atleast *looking* like they can appeal to the average American (not to say they really do or don't, I'm not sure).

and much of the money was Psychological money and not 'real' money. Thus I too agree inflation will NOT be a major problem in the future outside of the spikes caused by psychology and the markets.

I agree. The private sector will have to step back up. The government spending is to try and use, to the extent possible, the slack demand in the economy. At some point, though, the private sector will have to step into that breach. If it does not, then we are fucked.

And, when it does, further federal spending at the level of the stimulus would be really bad policy b/c it would crowd out private spending. And, since the market is the better judge of how to efficiently use a dollar than the government, you would always rather the money coming from the private sector.

I think that the biggest challenge for the government re: inflation/deflation will be trying to keep credit loose when the Fed needs to start taking dollars out of the economy. I am, personally, a bit worried that private lending is still so tight when we have this much money sloshing around.

very true, lending is extremely tight right now even though the verbiage would say otherwise.

(for clarity)

Bubba = Clinton
Dubya = Bush

There's no way with a straight face that I could say what I said above about Bush. In no way did he try to be moderate or keep both sides happy.

SI

The economy may get itself out of the recession, and the private sector may very well grow, but no matter how much things improve, it will still be a huge loss of of money in the system. Things HAVE to go down (even if the "down" is to a level that's higher then the lowest depth of the current recession). Maybe that's a net improvement, but it's also creates a risk of dragging things out for a decade or more. And it still creates a double-dip recession that the American consumer/employee may not have the stomach for.

As a point of clarification, I cited a NYT article which (in a very, very small part of the article) cited the Cato Institute as saying that the GOP was full of shit, fiscally (they used other words).

Which is a bit different from saying I cited the Cato Institute "as a neutral party".

Having said that, if I were to cite Cato, it would be to underscore, as the NYT article does, that even a think-tank that aligns with the GOP's supposed views on fiscal policy doesn't think the GOP knows what it's doing.

And I agree with Cato. The GOP doesn't have any good ideas and the Democrats haven't presented any alternatives of merit. Welcome to the cluster****.

so Zacharia is cited as being left leaning and thusly cannot be 'trusted' but you ignored the fact that YOU cited Cato as being a neutral 'trusted' source....do you not see the imbalance there? This isnt about you either it's about one being ok to cite and one not being eventhough a poster (in this case you) have done the same thing.

Could you clarify what "psychological money" is?

No, things don't have to go down. There was a considerable amount of idle capacity in the system that the stimulus is designed to temporarily fill while sparking private investment to continue to fill after the government spending is over. That's why the stimulus is temporary. It may not work that way, but your position would only be true if there were no unused capacity in the system.

Think of it in a micro sense. My block's babysitter suddenly finds herself without clients due to the recession. The government gives her 100 dollars to hold her over until she can get clients again. At the end of a month things have turned around and she's back to babysitting 3 nights a week for twenty dollars a night. Now she's making 240 dollars a month instead of the 100 that the government gave her.

Good illustration - hopefully the stimulus package merely fills those kinds of gaps, though its tough to have that kind of confidence in the federal government.

I know that Idaho didn't accept the full offered amount of stimiulus because they felt some of it tied them to spending more long-term (which is a big fear in a state like Idaho with a constitutional balanced budget requirement). They did accept a boatload though, for which they presumably didn't have that concern.

Psychological money is the money that exists on one's balance sheet only. could be personal, business etc. but it allows you to feel more wealthy with your income so the savings rate goes down because you begin to look at your checking account and assets as liquid. SO when things started to unravel and the writeoffs come, and the Ponzi schemes are exposed (and effect psychologically even those unaffected directly), and the wealth begins to evaporate, the "Psychological money" dissappears from the economy alongside the actual spending.

IOW you actually get tighter than what is evidenced so inflation not only has to occur with REAL money it has to affect the psychological money too for you to see the Inflation that some of the fear mongers talk about. I dont see that happening because the consumer has gotten scared stiff so the "real" money may loosen long before the Psychological Money does.

Though Dubya didn't touch them in charisma, I'll give him credit for pushing shit he thought was best through. So far Obama has been a pussy with getting his policies passed.

to keep the "Iran" thread clean:

I do not think it is Partisan anymore to call out an individual's claims, facts, and cites. MBBF consistently is called out on it for his lack of fact and then he hides behind the partisan veil. Refuses to admit when he has misguessed an outcome and parses words as well as Clinton ever did.

I think it is no longer Partisan is my point but is simply pointed at the same offender who doesnt seem to care even when he hit rock bottom on the whole bowling / short bus episode.

On the same note, it is apparently no longer treasonable to criticize the President vis-a-vis foreign policy during an international crisis.

It's also no longer treasonous to vote against funding the troops in the middle of two wars.