The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

At this point I think the spending is around 300 billion with the tax cuts around 200. Yes, it's still a lot of money, but the whole "we spent 700 billion and all I got was this lousy t-shirt" bit isn't close to accurate.

Alright, we'll use your numbers. $500B is a lot of money to waste to most people. I'm surprised you're able to downplay the waste of that amount so easily.

[JPhillips]

It's not all waste by any means. The direct aid to states and the extension of benefits not only saved jobs and helped people in need, but they also generate more economic activity than anything else in the stimulus. The spending on other projects was too little and not targeted enough at job production, but it's not like none of that money was beneficial. The tax cuts were the worst bang for the buck, but that was the only way to get anything passed.

Again, while I won't defend every aspect of the stimulus, it did what was expected by generating three or four points of GDP growth. Without it we almost certainly would have higher unemployment and more forecasts for the year ahead. Given that a few hundred billion of the deficit is from declining tax receipts, some of the money spent would have been lost without a stimulus.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Without it we almost certainly would have higher unemployment and more forecasts for the year ahead.

I think you're confusing the projections by Democrats before the bill was signed with what actually happened. I don't think I need to repost that graph. And 'certainly' is far from provable in this instance. The projections were way off and the results are inconclusive at best.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

And 'certainly' is far from provable in this instance.

As is saying the whole endeavor was a waste.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

As is saying the whole endeavor was a waste.

Absolutely. Could you point out a few examples of where you felt that the dollars were well spent? I personally saw nothing but waste in all the projects listed in my home state, but perhaps Texas had some spending that you thought was worthy of praise.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Absolutely. Could you point out a few examples of where you felt that the dollars were well spent? I personally saw nothing but waste in all the projects listed in my home state, but perhaps Texas had some spending that you thought was worthy of praise.

For starters:

• Increased funding for Head Start programs
• Technology updates for Job Corps sites
• Funding for infrastructure needs for over 500 school districts
• Grants for Border Patrol vehicles

Not to mention the $20-25 billion in tax cuts and credits from the stimulus package that will stay in the state.

It is damn near impossible for you to say with any level of believability that every single fund spent for your state was nothing but waste.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

I guess Mizzou's is cool with thousands more teachers, firefighters, police officers, and other public employees having to be laid off than already have been because that's what would've happened had the stimulus with it's billions in direct state aid not been passed.

Then again, I'm sure he would've called the WPA and CCC waste back in the 30's as well.

Good Lord. Doom and gloom. I guess it's too much for our government to ask people to take pay cuts or have a reduction in work force. The money isn't there. You haven't improved the economy any by 'saving' those jobs. A good leader would take the bull by the horns and run things like a business, not welfare. I work for the government as a contractor. I personally think it's laughable that contracting jobs like mine haven't been removed in favor of government workers. It's just more political games that create a need where there really isn't one. Another way to shove money around the system.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

I could have fixed the unemployment rate for you, I'm sure at the low price of say, a million per job, I can create 700,000 jobs. I'm sure that could trigger a recovery.

Yeah, but that wouldn't have accomplished the primary goal: buying votes.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I think you're confusing the projections by Democrats before the bill was signed with what actually happened. I don't think I need to repost that graph. And 'certainly' is far from provable in this instance. The projections were way off and the results are inconclusive at best.

Tell me how employment would be better or even the same with 3 to 4% lower GDP growth.

Just because projections were wrong doesn't mean the stimulus is ineffective.

[SirFozzie]

Think of it this way.. at least we're not as bad off politically as the Ukraine Parliament, which today dissolved into chaos with smoke bombs going off and eggs being thrown..

How to be a successful Ukrainian politician - Boston.com

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Think of it this way.. at least we're not as bad off politically as the Ukraine Parliament, which today dissolved into chaos with smoke bombs going off and eggs being thrown..

How to be a successful Ukrainian politician - Boston.com

So that's why all the hot Ukranian women I was looking at on hotrussianbrides.com last night want to get out of there!!!

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

A good leader would take the bull by the horns and run things like a business, not welfare.

No, a stupid leader would try to run the government like a business. They would get frustrated because a corporate decision-making structure is nothing like the government structure. There is separation of powers and walls created to prevent any single person or entity from wielding too much power in the government.

[molson]

I have no doubt that printing hundreds of billions of dollars of funny money improves short-term numbers, or even that an efficient, targeted stimulus could have made a lot of sense.

But the "jobs created" nonsense requires a lot of questionable math. I think that chart has been posted here, but when the white house claims "2.8 million jobs saved or created", all they've done is slash the number of "expected jobs without stimulus", a number which keeps changing downward every time numbers are thrown out.

(For example, last year, the white house contended that without the stimulus, there would be apprx 134 million jobs. As it turns out, there's only 129 million jobs now. So to make the "saved jobs" argument, they change that 134 estimate to 127. It's not very convincing).

I'm sure some jobs have been created. I'm sure if we throw another couple hundred billion at states a few more will be "created/saved." Why not make it a hundred trillion - that would wipe out unemployment altogether, and poverty while we're at it!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

Why not make it a hundred trillion - that would wipe out unemployment altogether, and poverty while we're at it!

Give 'em time, it takes a while to redistribute that much money.

[JPhillips]

I've been pretty consistent that measuring jobs created is a fool's errand. GDP growth is much more measurable and a more realistic gauge of the stimulus.

[SportsDino]

I guess I'm just a cold hearted fiscal conservative.... of course I should have seen that the 3-4% increase in GDP (a gamed statistic that is inflated by stock market gains as well...) is much more important than a paltry thing such as nearly 10% unemployment (a gamed statistic that is much lower than what the average man would consider unemployment).

Hell, you give me $100 billion and I would have outperformed Uncle Sam at whatever level you will admit was spent. Even if all I did was turn around and throw it into an unemployment benefits program... zero creativity necessary to do that.

I'm not saying every piece of the stimulus is bad (like some hardliners may), I've posted elsewhere on the value of unemployment payments over tax cuts, of infrastructure investment over subsidies, and so on. What I'm saying is for the bajillion dollars I'm not seeing all that much gain. You give me that kind of lever and I'd have moved some statistics in a noticeable way.

Hell in another thread I'm promoting a full public option which would be liberal heaven, but in this thread I'm throwing down the 'stimulus was crap' guantlet and I'm not gonna say it was good just to be a cheerleader for Obama. Democrats have been passing some really Republican-like shit lately, and its pissin me off! Same for the Republicans... its like they've agreed to put together the two most evil portions of their policies together to screw us all in the butt (government spendocracy + vote buying tax cuts + massive bureacracies that do nothing).

Believe me or not I guess... one thing to mention, besides the names of the line items, just look at the amounts and then track down particular results. If you would think for the amounts they spend they should expect what they actually got, then I guess I'll never convince you. Maybe I don't see the benefit of construction contracts where the amount paid is far more then the amount anyone could possibly spend on materials and labor (or maybe inflation really has hit)... or handouts to supposedly slow job loss and the budgets are still millions or billions in the hole and doing further cuts. There is some damn huge corruption going on here, and that is why I claim my million dollars per job estimate would actually be better results than what we got.

Hell, most businesses are happy if they can get 200-300K total revenue per average employee (this is a basic stat you can use when evaluating growth stocks). Where is the money going? Why are we going to have depressed employment for 5 years? This is stupid and its broken, I don't care whether it is a Republican or a Democrat giving the speeches.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

Why are we going to have depressed employment for 5 years?

Because we've got more people than we have jobs for them, and in an increasingly automated and/or sophisticated work environment that's going to be a given. We've had that for years but we refused to make sound business decisions for so long that warranted cuts weren't made until things got really tight & then they came in a bunch.

Some of those jobs will come back (theoretically at least), if only to make life a little easier for those who remained on the job, but many of them won't ... because there simply isn't a valid fiscal reason for them to.

[SirFozzie]

Ford reporting 2.1 Billion Profit, and many are pointing at info like this that things are recovering:

BBC News - Ford Motors quarterly profits hit a six-year high

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

I guess I'm just a cold hearted fiscal conservative.... of course I should have seen that the 3-4% increase in GDP (a gamed statistic that is inflated by stock market gains as well...) is much more important than a paltry thing such as nearly 10% unemployment (a gamed statistic that is much lower than what the average man would consider unemployment).

Hell, you give me $100 billion and I would have outperformed Uncle Sam at whatever level you will admit was spent. Even if all I did was turn around and throw it into an unemployment benefits program... zero creativity necessary to do that.

I'm not saying every piece of the stimulus is bad (like some hardliners may), I've posted elsewhere on the value of unemployment payments over tax cuts, of infrastructure investment over subsidies, and so on. What I'm saying is for the bajillion dollars I'm not seeing all that much gain. You give me that kind of lever and I'd have moved some statistics in a noticeable way.

Hell in another thread I'm promoting a full public option which would be liberal heaven, but in this thread I'm throwing down the 'stimulus was crap' guantlet and I'm not gonna say it was good just to be a cheerleader for Obama. Democrats have been passing some really Republican-like shit lately, and its pissin me off! Same for the Republicans... its like they've agreed to put together the two most evil portions of their policies together to screw us all in the butt (government spendocracy + vote buying tax cuts + massive bureacracies that do nothing).

Believe me or not I guess... one thing to mention, besides the names of the line items, just look at the amounts and then track down particular results. If you would think for the amounts they spend they should expect what they actually got, then I guess I'll never convince you. Maybe I don't see the benefit of construction contracts where the amount paid is far more then the amount anyone could possibly spend on materials and labor (or maybe inflation really has hit)... or handouts to supposedly slow job loss and the budgets are still millions or billions in the hole and doing further cuts. There is some damn huge corruption going on here, and that is why I claim my million dollars per job estimate would actually be better results than what we got.

Hell, most businesses are happy if they can get 200-300K total revenue per average employee (this is a basic stat you can use when evaluating growth stocks). Where is the money going? Why are we going to have depressed employment for 5 years? This is stupid and its broken, I don't care whether it is a Republican or a Democrat giving the speeches.

But the package you describe would have never passed through Congress. I've said repeatedly I'm not defending every aspect of this bill, for example I would have liked to see a civilian corps created to paint and repair public schools. I am saying that any discussion of the stimulus should be based on facts and not just catchy slogans.

The stimulus was not 700 billion in spending.

The government didn't spend 787 billion on stimulus last year.

The stimulus did boost GDP by 3 to 4% based on economists of every political persuasion.

I think unemployment is a much bigger issue than does Obama and I can't understand why they aren't trying to do something about employment when their own projections look so rough over the next few years. However, just because I don't think the stimulus was as effective as it could have been it doesn't mean it had no effect at all.

[JPhillips]

The Oklahoma Legislature voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to override vetoes of two highly restrictive abortion measures, one making it a law that women undergo an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus before having an abortion.

Though other states have passed similar measures forcing women to have ultrasounds, Oklahoma’s law goes further, requiring a doctor or technician to set up the monitor where the woman can see it and describe the heart, limbs and organs of the fetus. No exceptions are made for rape and incest victims.

The second measure passed into law Tuesday protects doctors from malpractice suits if they decide not to inform the parents of a unborn baby that the fetus has birth defects. The intent of the bill is to prevent parents from later suing doctors who withhold information to try to influence them against having an abortion.

WTF?

[DaddyTorgo]

That's fucking ridiculous. No way that stands up in the courts, no matter how far up they have to take it. I'd also go about it from another direction and if I was a patient get any doctor that lied to me like that's medical license revoked for unethical conduct.

[miked]

But didn't you know the GOP is for tort reform? This fits perfectly... Next, you'll have to produce proof that you are a citizen and be forced to watch the entire procedure, without anesthesia, and officially name the fertilized egg for the birth and death certificates.

[panerd]

This commericial seems like a really bad idea. No I don't think they are really going to come and do me harm but I can't imagine what they were thinking when they made this ad and or when a supervisor approved it. It's almost like they hope to piss people off and I don't really think it should be government's role to try and agitate people. Maybe it's all in good fun and I don't get the joke?

[RainMaker]

Yeah, that's a really bad ad. That stuff should be used for DUI ads and stuff like that. Not for people having trouble paying their taxes.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

This commericial seems like a really bad idea. No I don't think they are really going to come and do me harm but I can't imagine what they were thinking when they made this ad and or when a supervisor approved it. It's almost like they hope to piss people off and I don't really think it should be government's role to try and agitate people. Maybe it's all in good fun and I don't get the joke?

I wouldn't have done the ad in that fashion, but it doesn't seem any more harsh than deadbeat dad ads.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I wouldn't have done the ad in that fashion, but it doesn't seem any more harsh than deadbeat dad ads.

I just think this is exactly the type of thing that gets the tea party people up in arms. They don't think they should have to pay taxes, they think the government is recording their every move, and some of them are expecting a war with the government. Doesn't this play into their hands completely? If so, why make the ad? Seems like agitiation would be the only motive. I can't imagine there is any tax cheat sitting around watching this commericial and deciding to pay now. The ad could have had a completely different spin and maybe gotten someone to decide it's worth the amnesty.

[JPhillips]

As I said, I would have done it differently. I'm not sure, though, that we should be worried about the delicate sensibilities of tax cheats. You can argue all you want about tax rates, but at the end of the day not paying fucks over everyone in the state that does pay.

My guess, and it's only a guess, is that the ad is aimed at high end tax cheats that have a lot to lose by being run through the court system. I don't know if it would be effective, but I doubt it's aimed at the anti-tax zealots in he first place.

[molson]

Nobody likes criminals.

[JPhillips]

For the love of God. Lieberman I understand, but Schumer shouldn't be such a dumbass.

Here's how Joe Lieberman's citizenship-stripping bill would work

By now you've heard that Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) is proposing a new law that could potentially strip Americans of their citizenship if they're involved with foreign terrorist organizations.

Two things you should know about this: First, it isn't just some paranoid liberal nightmare. It's actually moving forward. Lieberman is going to hold a presser tomorrow to introduce the bill, I'm told, along with Rep. Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has already signaled he could support this.

Second, Lieberman's office has clarified to me how the law would work: It would empower the State Department to conclude -- on its own -- that Americans are conspiring with terror groups and should be stripped of their citizenship.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

For the love of God. Lieberman I understand, but Schumer shouldn't be such a dumbass.

Senator McCarthy is dancing in his grave...

[JPhillips]

Apparently Schumer isn't as much of a dumbass.

Okay, it turns out that Chuck Schumer is not supporting Joe Lieberman's new proposal to strip the citizenship of those who are involved with terror groups. In fact, he's coming out against it forcefully, saying it's likely unconstitutional and not a good way to fight terror.

As I noted below, Lieberman is set to introduce the new proposal at a presser tomorrow. Schumer had reportedly claimed that it was something he could support.

But Schumer spokesman Brian Fallon emails me to say that Schumer was blindsided by a reporter's question and doesn't support the measure at all:

"The senator was approached abruptly in the hall of the Capitol by a reporter before he had even heard about the legislation or what it did. Having learned about the proposal, he believes it would be found unconstitutional in this context and would also be ineffective. There are much better ways of obtaining information from terrorists."

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Apparently Schumer isn't as much of anything except a worthless bedwetting liberal

Fixed that for you.

[rowech]

Strip citizenship? No need. Just hang them for treason.

[RainMaker]

Congress can't strip citizenship from a person involuntarily. It's just political posturing and it apparently has worked on a few of you.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

So McCain can't access the internet and Obama's can't play a video game or use a touch interface......

AFP: Obama bemoans 'diversions' of IPod, Xbox era

"With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation," Obama said.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by rowech

Strip citizenship? No need. Just hang them for treason.

I agree. It would have done us alot of good to strip Richard Jewell of his citizenship and hang him.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I agree. It would have done us alot of good to strip Richard Jewell of his citizenship and hang him.

Good choice of argument. Seriously...what the hell is it that? Guy was innocent and found to be so.

If someone goes to trial, is found guilty of sending money/aid to a member of Al-Qaeda or any like terrorist network, they should be put to death for treason.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by rowech

Good choice of argument. Seriously...what the hell is it that? Guy was innocent and found to be so.

And the discussion in the thread was about someone who hasn't been found guilty yet. Yet people want to strip him of his citizenship and/or hang him.

I'm just saying it's a good thing we didn't do that to Jewell.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

And the discussion in the thread was about someone who hasn't been found guilty yet. Yet people want to strip him of his citizenship and/or hang him.

I'm just saying it's a good thing we didn't do that to Jewell.

I certainly don't believe the state department should be allowed to do anything just because but we've reached the point where the govenment has decided it has the right to do anything it deems needed on just about anything.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

What liberal media? Yes, it's from DailyKos, but it's not like there's a liberal bias toward numbers.

Daily Kos: Sunday Snooze Talk: The Skewpot

Why was The Chris Matthews Show and Fareed Zakaria's GPS left out?

[larrymcg421]

Kagan is the SCOTUS nominee. Good choice. It will be hard for the Republicans to oppose her.

I liked Stevens comments on how it is inappropriate to try and determine exactly how a justice will rule. Yet I'm sure we will get more of that this time around.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Kagan is the SCOTUS nominee. Good choice. It will be hard for the Republicans to oppose her.

Have you been in a coma for the past 18 months?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Kagan is the SCOTUS nominee. Good choice. It will be hard for the Republicans to oppose her.

I liked Stevens comments on how it is inappropriate to try and determine exactly how a justice will rule. Yet I'm sure we will get more of that this time around.

What have we come to where Jabba the Hut suddenly is a viable nominee? I only agree with the decision if Princess Leia is chained to the Supreme Court bench in a gold bikini. Otherwise, filibuster.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

What have we come to where Jabba the Hut suddenly is a viable nominee? I only agree with the decision if Princess Leia is chained to the Supreme Court bench in a gold bikini. Otherwise, filibuster.

Preemptive post:

Any other thread this would be funny to everyone. (Of coruse it is to me!) This thread will get ugly (pun intended) we will hear about Janet Reno and how Sarah Palin is all looks and no substance. Its politics guys none of these people give two shits about you. Lighten up. (Crosses fingers and hopes Bollea doesn't have to climb into his ivory tower for this one)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by panerd

Preemptive post:

Any other thread this would be funny to everyone. (Of coruse it is to me!) This thread will get ugly (pun intended) we will hear about Janet Reno and how Sarah Palin is all looks and no substance. Its politics guys none of these people give two shits about you. Lighten up. (Crosses fingers and hopes Bollea doesn't have to climb into his ivory tower for this one)

I just want to see Princess Leia become an established part of our judicial system. I think that would indicate true 'change' for the better.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Have you been in a coma for the past 18 months?

You basically beat me to it. Although I'll concede that he probably meant "oppose with a to-the-death-filibuster" a great deal more than simply "oppose".

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

On a more serious note, I should mention that I support what appears to be Obama's move to even out the female/male ratio on the Supreme Court. Honestly, I think that there should be five women and four men. We'll see if that ever happens in my lifetime (which should hopefully last another 40-50 years).

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

What have we come to where Jabba the Hut suddenly is a viable nominee? I only agree with the decision if Princess Leia is chained to the Supreme Court bench in a gold bikini. Otherwise, filibuster.

Big surprise.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

On a more serious note, I should mention that I support what appears to be Obama's move to even out the female/male ratio on the Supreme Court. Honestly, I think that there should be five women and four men. We'll see if that ever happens in my lifetime (which should hopefully last another 40-50 years).

Demographically I'm pleased about the inclusion of a non-federal court judge to the mix. On the other hand, the appointment will leave the court without a single Protestant, a rather glaring omission for the most common denomination in the US.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You basically beat me to it. Although I'll concede that he probably meant "oppose with a to-the-death-filibuster" a great deal more than simply "oppose".

I assumed that's what Larry meant as well.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Demographically I'm pleased about the inclusion of a non-federal court judge to the mix. On the other hand, the appointment will leave the court without a single Protestant, a rather glaring omission for the most common denomination in the US.

Well, you could always throw your support behind my preferred nominee, Diane Wood.