The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You see positives. I see $15B more in needlessly wasted money.

You never seemed like one who would call tax cuts wasted money. Always thought you were for smaller government, less taxes.

[Flasch186]

CBO: Stimulus bill created up to 2.1 million jobs - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON – The economic stimulus law added between 1 million to 2.1 million workers to employment rolls by the end of last year, a new report released Tuesday by congressional economists said.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office study also said the $862 billion stimulus added between 1.5 to 3.5 percentage points to the growth of the economy in 2009. The controversial stimulus law combined tax breaks for individuals and businesses with lots of government spending.

The report reflects agreement among economists that the measure boosted the economy. But the wide range of estimates means it won't resolve the debate over how effective the stimulus has been.

The White House says the stimulus bill has created 2 million jobs and will add another 1.5 million this year as economic recovery continues to take hold.

CBO projects that the stimulus measure to have a greater impact this year, boosting gross domestic product by 1.4 to 4 percentage points and lowering the unemployment rate by 0.7 to 1.8 percentage points.

The report said the most efficient parts of the stimulus include infrastructure projects such as road- and bridge-building and more generous unemployment benefits. On the other hand, the popular first-time homebuyer tax credit isn't a very efficient use of stimulus dollars, the report said.

The economy has shed 8.4 million jobs since the start of the recession in December of 2007, though job losses have slowed in the past couple of months.

The stimulus measure has earned mixed grades from a public weary of a bad economy and increasingly concerned about out-of-control budget deficits. Democrats are seeking to renew several parts of the stimulus, however, including aid for state governments and extended unemployment insurance benefits for the long-term jobless.

The White House acknowledges the long-term debt burden of the stimulus measure will place a slight drag on the economy in future years.

[DaddyTorgo]

wait what - the stimulus bill actually helped? omg...imagine that!

*waiting for the spin about how job growth is bad*

[Greyroofoo]

We have job growth?

[DaddyTorgo]

well...jobs created.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

CBO: Stimulus bill created up to 2.1 million jobs - Yahoo! News

Anybody got the various figures handy to turn those percentages into actual (projected) dollars?

Looking for the ROI on the $862b basically.

I'll skip the question about "what economic recovery" since that's probably a separate issue for their projections instead of the more directly measurable stuff.

[DaddyTorgo]

Jon - you're smart enough to know that you can't break it down to "$x per new job." frankly i'd expect more from you than that pathetic strawman argument

[miked]

That is a good question, as those 2.1 million jobs generate tax revenue. But are you talking a strict ROI? Like if those jobs gave people money to spend on goods and other items, do you count the tax revenue for the city/county/state? The companies that make money will also be paying more taxes too. Sounds like a job for some fuzzy-math people. I've taken a lot of math and stats, but that sort of thing sounds really hard to quantify.

[molson]

I don't think anyone could reasonably question that borrowing $800 billion would improve a country's short-term financial picture. Anybody can buy a bunch of stuff on a credit card. The real test of this thing will be whether we have a double-dip recession when the money dries up (or if we have to borrow another trillion or so just to stay afloat)

It's kind of silly to brag about your financial success when everything you own was bought on credit, and your future income potential is questionable at best.

[JonInMiddleGA]

[quote=DaddyTorgo;2229926]Jon - you're smart enough to know that you can't break it down to "$x per new job." frankly i'd expect more from you than that pathetic strawman argument[/QUOTE

You weren't getting an argument from me (yet). I was simply wondering, straightforward as can be, what the estimated 1.whatever million jobs paid out. I mean, if we know how many then we almost certainly know how much those paid in estimated salaries. And there are almost equally certainly standard multipliers that can be applied to them for spending, respending, tax affects, etc.

I just spent the last 6 working days watching a client spend $24k in a desperate attempt to generate (if they're lucky) an additional $12k in sales for the month of March. If I'm a little ROI-centric after that clusterfuck then you'll either have to forgive me or deal with it, but I'm hyper-aware right this moment of how some spending simply doesn't make a damned bit of sense.

Whether that's the case - in ballparky numbers - with this segment of the stimulus is beyond my willingness to go round up the figures on tonight (I'm pretty f'n numbered out atm), which is why I asked whether someone might have them. Truth is, I'm fairly sure somehow has already done them & they're linked online somewhere I just haven't seen them.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't think anyone could reasonably question that borrowing $800 billion would improve a country's short-term financial picture.

Well except seemingly the entire GOP Congressional delegation.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Anybody got the various figures handy to turn those percentages into actual (projected) dollars?

Looking for the ROI on the $862b basically.

I'll skip the question about "what economic recovery" since that's probably a separate issue for their projections instead of the more directly measurable stuff.

You can't use 862bn. About 40% of that was tax cuts and a significant portion of the spending will be allocated in 2010. I can't give you exact figures for what has already been spent, but starting at 862bn isn't at all accurate.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Anybody got the various figures handy to turn those percentages into actual (projected) dollars?

Looking for the ROI on the $862b basically.

I'll skip the question about "what economic recovery" since that's probably a separate issue for their projections instead of the more directly measurable stuff.

Well, just doing the back of the napkin figures, if the $862B and 2.1M jobs are accurate, that gives $410K per job.

SI

[lungs]

That didn't take long.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

It's good to know that you know better than Moody's, the chief economist of PNC bank, and economists at Standards and Poors and Wells Fargo.
.

You didn't understand my post.

The stimulus "worked" in the sense of providing short-term benefits to the economy, no doubt. That has nothing to do with the critisism/fears associated with it.

Printing money out of thin air and buying shit allows you have more shit than you otherwise would have. No fucking shit. Seeing people brag about THAT part really puts a spotlight on how doomed we are.

If the economy recovers steadily, we don't need to print another trillion in funny money to keep it going, and we don't have a double-dip recession within the next few years, than absolutely, the stimulus was a great thing.

Just like if I borrow money to get through a tough time, then in the long term I improve my position to where I'm more financially stable - the loans were a good idea. Or if I borrow a lot of money to get my business going, and those investments help my business get it's feet on the ground and be successful, it was great to get that loan. But just getting the loan and buying shit is not the "success" part. That's how financial deadbeats think.

I remember Democrats at least pretended they thought this was true when we had these debates back then - there were a ton of posts (both about the stimulus and the TARP) that "we just need to bide time to fix things". Now everyone's trumpting just spending the money AS the success, so apparently we don't need to worry about the underlining problems anymore. Again, just like a financial deadbeat - the black sheep uncle that gets his brother to loan him money, and then the uncle thinks all his problems are solved! (until the next time).

The stimulus certainly gives this country a CHANCE for success (just like a business loan), but the fact that we already apparently consider it a success (just because we got to spend the money), doesn't make me very optimistic that we'll take advantage of the opportunity.

It will be interesting, from an economic point of view (not interesting in the sense of the human suffering this will cause), to see what exactly happens when we just utterly disregard financial discipline long-term, to these ridiculous extremes. I really don't think we've seen anything yet.

Or in other words - is it worth doing something that decreases unemployment from 11% to 10% now, if those actions contribute to increasing it to 15%-20% in the not-to-distant future? I mean, maybe it will, maybe it won't, but THAT'S where success needs to be measured.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lungs

That didn't take long.

As expected (by any realist anyway). It's why my enthusiasm was tempered, he was a temporary solution to a more persistent problem at best.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by lungs

That didn't take long.

Wow.

Independent thought not welcome he-ya!

[lungs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

As expected (by any realist anyway). It's why my enthusiasm was tempered, he was a temporary solution to a more persistent problem at best.

Yep, what were they expecting, the second coming of Trent Lott?

[molson]

This is part of why he won, he definitely didn't seem obsessed with team politics. Very refreshing. I think he's already taken more anti-republican views than most posters here have taken anti-Democrat views.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by lungs

That didn't take long.

I don't think it should be terribly surprising that the conservative talking heads are up in arms. They're always grumpy about something. It keeps them in a job.

The Republicans should be well aware how this works. They're going to have to handle Brown much like the Dems handle Liebermann. He's not going to always vote with you, but he still votes with you far more often than he votes against you.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by molson

This is part of why he won, he definitely didn't seem obsessed with team politics. Very refreshing. I think he's already taken more anti-republican views than most posters here have taken anti-Democrat views.

is this where we do the list thing again and show where we disagree with the democratic policies again?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

is this where we do the list thing again and show where we disagree with the democratic policies again?

I would LOVE to see your list again, I remember it made me laugh last time.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

As expected (by any realist anyway).

Not a lot of these types in the conservative punditocracy or tea party group, clearly.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

This is part of why he won, he definitely didn't seem obsessed with team politics.

You mean he doesn't want Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck & Rush Limbaugh telling him what to do? Sounds like a good plan to me.

I think he's already taken more anti-republican views than most posters here have taken anti-Democrat views.

You say that as if the stated views of either party really mean anything these days.

[lungs]

Are there many other Lieberman-like Democrats? I know the Republicans have Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.

Russ Feingold takes some heat from liberals here and there for not towing the company line despite his reputation as being fairly left-wing. FWIW, I'm a big fan of Feingold and just donated to his reelection campaign. I loved it when he was asked why he voted against the Patriot Act and his response was "I read it."

[JPhillips]

Yes.

The Senate is holding a hearing today where several current and former Blackwater employees will be testifying, but honestly the only way Congress would stop giving Blackwater money is if it started registering black people to vote.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by molson

I would LOVE to see your list again, I remember it made me laugh last time.

really? I dont think your reaction at that time was an LOL.

FWIW, I suck at searching the forums. I just looked for it and cant find it. I hate that.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by lungs

Are there many other Lieberman-like Democrats? I know the Republicans have Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.

Russ Feingold takes some heat from liberals here and there for not towing the company line despite his reputation as being fairly left-wing. FWIW, I'm a big fan of Feingold and just donated to his reelection campaign. I loved it when he was asked why he voted against the Patriot Act and his response was "I read it."

Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu, the House Blue Dog coalition spring to mind.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

The report said the most efficient parts of the stimulus include infrastructure projects such as road- and bridge-building and more generous unemployment benefits. On the other hand, the popular first-time homebuyer tax credit isn't a very efficient use of stimulus dollars, the report said.

It certainly was a nice thousand dollar band-aid on a knife wound, but there are still major issues to overcome (perhaps spending that money on stitches would have been better). Hiring a bunch of people to build bridges and fix roads is a temporary fix, but those jobs aren't sustainable. The focus needs to be on creating long term jobs (esp with small businesses).

But, as Judge Smails says, "The world needs ditch-diggers too".

Originally Posted by molson

This is part of why he won, he definitely didn't seem obsessed with team politics. Very refreshing. I think he's already taken more anti-republican views than most posters here have taken anti-Democrat views.

Agreed. I like the guy more after seeing his reasoning for supporting the jobs bill. Even if I don't agree with his policies, the idea of thinking through a problem and working on a solution independent of party is refreshing.

[flere-imsaho]

It's educational to note that when she started her career in the U.S. House, Olympia Snowe was generally considered a mainstream Republican. In today's GOP, she's a serious outlier.

[Arles]

It's educational to note that when JFK was president, he was considered a mainstream democrat. In today's world, he would be considered right of George W Bush.

[JPhillips]

Hooray for consistency! The final Senate vote on the jobs bill was 70-28. How do you justify voting against cloture but for the final bill?

IMO this is a terrible bill. 15bn is too small to do any good.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

It's educational to note that when JFK was president, he was considered a mainstream democrat. In today's world, he would be considered right of George W Bush.

Not on economics. Sure he passed tax cuts, but his view of proper progressive tax rates and his desire to spend on anti-poverty programs would put him far to the left of almost any elected Dem.

[Arles]

I talking more on his war policies and tax theory - which is about 80+% of what democrats didn't like about Bush. He also was very conservative socially (although that's probably more based on the time than anything).

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

It's educational to note that when JFK was president, he was considered a mainstream democrat. In today's world, he would be considered right of George W Bush.

The guy who founded the Peace Corps, signed the first nuclear test ban treaty, promised federal funds for education and medical care for the elderly, used federal law enforcement power to end racial segregation, believed in government intervention in the economy to ease recessions, banned the death penalty in D.C., and used the government to set the price of steel would be considered to the right of George W. Bush?

In what way?

[JPhillips]

Depends on what you mean by conservative socially. He stood pretty clearly for civil rights.

On taxes, sure he cut them, but only after he tried to push through spending increases that Congress didn't agree to. I also don't think too many people would say Kennedy's 70% top marginal rate puts him to the right of Bush.

[ISiddiqui]

Also consider that Nixon would be considered a left wing Democrat these days. The guy, after all, started the EPA, OSHA, the Clean Air Act, SSI, and indexed Social Security for inflation.

Reagan moved the country rightward, remember.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

I talking more on his war policies and tax theory - which is about 80+% of what democrats didn't like about Bush.

Then maybe you should have said that. Regardless, you're still wrong, even on Vietnam. There's a gulf of difference between Kennedy's Realpolitick approach to Vietnam and Bush's Neocon approach to Iraq. Not to mention that Kennedy kept troop commitments under 20,000 and, according to McNamara before he died, was seriously considering ending the endeavor by 1964.

And if you think he'd be on the same page with Bush vis-a-vis taxes given the current context, you're out of your mind. His views on taxation need to take what taxation under Eisenhower was like.

And those are the only two points where Kennedy even begins to approach Bush on policy.

But, you know, one-liners FTW.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

This is part of why he won, he definitely didn't seem obsessed with team politics. Very refreshing. I think he's already taken more anti-republican views than most posters here have taken anti-Democrat views.

LOL, you take what was a positive post about a moderate Republican and turned it into a jab at the liberals on this board. Just couldn't help yourself? But I forget, you're "in the middle".

For the record, I'm pro-life and pro-gun. Is that enough of a divergence for you or am I still a sheep?

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

LOL, you take what was a positive post about a moderate Republican and turned it into a jab at the liberals on this board. Just couldn't help yourself? But I forget, you're "in the middle".

Fair point, I was just taken aback by the "independent thought" comment, that what I was responding to. It wasn't a positive post at all, it was a post mocking people who labled Brown a "turncoat", which I found funny.

I'm not anywhere close to the middle, in the sense I definitely hate the Democratic party way, way, more than the Republican party. But that doesn't even really have to do with the issues.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The guy who founded the Peace Corps, signed the first nuclear test ban treaty, promised federal funds for education and medical care for the elderly, used federal law enforcement power to end racial segregation, believed in government intervention in the economy to ease recessions, banned the death penalty in D.C., and used the government to set the price of steel would be considered to the right of George W. Bush?

I don't think George W Bush was against the Peace Corps (he certainly did his fair share of nation building), federal funds for education (he spent a ton there - remember no child left behind?) and he certainly wasn't for racial segregation. So, it comes down to him banning the death penalty in DC (something Bush never tried to overturn) and spending government money to prop up the economy (Bush competed with Obama in that area of massive spending). Throw in both wanting to massively cut income taxes during a recessions and being very hawkish when it came to world foe (Al Quada for Bush and Soviet Union for JFK) and I'm struggling to find much of a difference between the two on anything substantive.

Here's some landmark quotes from JFK - do they sound like something that would come from Obama or Bush?

And so, my fellow americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Certainly more of a conservative view given the health care/welfare/unemployment/social spending angle in both parties. I would say more Bush than Obama - esp taking a shot at the world's reliance on the US.

Domestic policy can only defeat us; foreign policy can kill us.

Bush, without question. Obama certainly seems a lot more focused on domestic issues.

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility - I welcome it.

Sounds like a line from the W playbook right there.

Israel was not created in order to disappear - Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and the home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom.

Again, much more W than Obama. Obama tries to walk a more neutral line in that conflict.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

Sensing a pattern?

It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.

Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.

Yep, that's the current democrat mantra.

I'm an idealist with no illusions.

About as anti-Obama as you can get. JFK was extremely practical with his stance on numerous policies.

Now, there are certainly other quotes that are more platitude-based and up Obama's alley - but if you look at the comments that shaped his policies on personal responsibility/welfare, foreign policy, fiscal policy and the brashness with which he attacked the US enemies of the world seemed a lot more like W than Obama.

[molson]

I wish we still had Democrats (or Republicans) like that-

"And so, my fellow americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man."

It's just an entirely different mindset of America. Nobody thinks like this anymore. They blurt out the quote, but nobody really thinks like this. It's like the exact opposite of the rhetoric of the Obama campaign.

And I don't hear any politician talk like this either:

"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government. "

Today, taxes are like a moral issue. They're either compassionate or evil, depending on your side.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by molson

It wasn't a positive post at all, it was a post mocking people who labled Brown a "turncoat", which I found funny.

Why should they not be mocked? Anybody who expected Brown to be a staunch, reliable conservative absolutely deserves it. I'd wager a guess that even JiMGA would agree with that.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Not to mention that Kennedy kept troop commitments under 20,000 and, according to McNamara before he died, was seriously considering ending the endeavor by 1964.

He still made the choice to enter a country pro-actively that posed no threat to the US. And, his rhetoric on Cuba/Russia was almost 100% that of W.

And if you think he'd be on the same page with Bush vis-a-vis taxes given the current context, you're out of your mind.

This is an unprovable assertion - no different than me saying Kennedy would cut taxes a lot more than Obama in today's climate. Atleast I would have Kennedy's own words in support of that action (as stated above).

And those are the only two points where Kennedy even begins to approach Bush on policy.

OK, outside of determining when to attack a country without the ability to retaliate against the US, federal income tax policy, overall fiscal policy, investment in the US military, commitment to federal education spending, foreign policy regarding US foes and rhetoric to US enemies - W and JFK may not be all that alike.

But, you know, one-liners FTW.

Don't let JFK's own comments and policies impact a good story.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

Certainly more of a conservative view given the health care/welfare/unemployment/social spending angle in both parties. I would say more Bush than Obama - esp taking a shot at the world's reliance on the US.

Actually I'd consider that a very liberal, communitarian mindset. Far different from the hyperindividualism ("free market") of today's conservative movement.

As for the tax quotes, are you fucking out of your mind?!! The highest tax rates in 1960 were 70%!! In 2000 it was 37%! Jeez louise, learn some context!!

[molson]

Originally Posted by lungs

Why should they not be mocked? Anybody who expected Brown to be a staunch, reliable conservative absolutely deserves it. I'd wager a guess that even JiMGA would agree with that.

They should be mocked, I just found it ironic considering the poster, and Lieberman's general status as some kind of super-villain.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Arles

and he certainly wasn't for racial segregation.

Uhh, what politician in this day and age would be openly for racial segregation? Besides Tom Tancredo, I mean. (I kid)

[lungs]

Originally Posted by molson

They should be mocked, I just found it ironic considering the poster, and Lieberman's general status as some kind of super-villain.

You talking about me or Larry? If you're talking about me, Lieberman not winning the (D) primary in 2004 is the primary reason I did not vote (D) in 2004.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

The politicians who piss off the D and R bases are my favorite kind.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lungs

Why should they not be mocked? Anybody who expected Brown to be a staunch, reliable conservative absolutely deserves it. I'd wager a guess that even JiMGA would agree with that.

Oh yeah, go up the thread however far & you'll find me cautioning against anything more than a temporary celebration on the morning after.