The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Recent research has really clarified the link between economic performance and reelection. I don't think you can say campaigning doesn't matter at all, but it doesn't matter that much.

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).

[sterlingice]

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

SI

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

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

SI

We may not have it anymore 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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

But yeah, I'm sure if unemployment was down to 7%, the GOP and certain people on this board would be acting as if Obama was the Worst President Ever.

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.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

the new PM going right on both climate change and refugees thus making the base pissed off.

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?

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.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

But the Greens largely blocked bill in the Senate from what I understand because Labour was trying to water it down to appease certain mining interests.

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.

Also, since I'm guessing people understand how elections work in their country about as well as Americans understand their own elections (in other words, they don't), they thought voting for Green would give Green more power and leverage to force a better climate bill through, not almost give a wacko like Abbott the PM's office.

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")

[Edward64]

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

With the job market stuck in neutral, the Obama administration is moving toward using the revenue from expiring tax cuts for the wealthy to finance about $35 billion of tax cuts for small businesses and workers, administration and congressional officials said Friday.
:
But Democrats are split into three camps. A small but vocal group wants to temporarily extend all the tax cuts passed by George W. Bush, which expire Jan. 1. A larger camp wants to let tax cuts for those earning $250,000 or more expire and use the proceeds for measures such as a payroll-tax holiday or other small-business breaks. And the third contingent wants to end those top-tier cuts and use the revenue to pay down the deficit.

[ace1914]

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.

[Greyroofoo]

I wonder how much of that is makeup/hair dye

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

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.

[sterlingice]

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

SI

[JPhillips]

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.

[Edward64]

What a headache. Free speech vs political realities.

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

KABUL, Afghanistan -- Hundreds of Afghans railed against the United States and called for President Barack Obama's death at a rally in the capital Monday to denounce an American church's plan to burn the Islamic holy book on Sept. 11.

The crowd in Kabul, numbering as many as 500, chanted "Long live Islam" and "Death to America" as they listened to fiery speeches from members of parliament, provincial council deputies, and Islamic clerics who criticized the U.S. and demanded the withdrawal of foreign troops from the country. Some threw rocks when a U.S. military convoy passed, but speakers shouted at them to stop and told police to arrest anyone who disobeyed.

The Gainesville, Florida-based Dove World Outreach Center announced plans to burn copies of the Koran on church grounds to mark the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but has been denied a permit to set a bonfire. The church, which made headlines last year after distributing T-shirts that said "Islam is of the Devil," has vowed to proceed with the burning.

"We know this is not just the decision of a church. It is the decision of the president and the entire United States," said Abdul Shakoor, an 18-year-old high school student who said he joined the protest after hearing neighborhood gossip about the Koran burning.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

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

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Edward64

What a headache. Free speech vs political realities.

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

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.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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?

[SirFozzie]

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?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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

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.

[albionmoonlight]

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.

[JPhillips]

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.

[DaddyTorgo]

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

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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.

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.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

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?

[Dutch]

What does this have to do with President Obama?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dutch

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)

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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

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

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

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Dutch

What does this have to do with President Obama?

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.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

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

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

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

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Dutch

What does this have to do with President Obama?

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.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

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

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

Massive?

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

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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."

[JPhillips]

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.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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

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.

[DaddyTorgo]

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.

[JPhillips]

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.

[JPhillips]

Here's the problem.

[stevew]

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.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Um, there's somewhere between two and three trillion dollars in infrastructure that needs to be rebuilt or replaced because it's been let go for the past thirty years. But yes, probably Ohio has let stuff go because people people will bitch about the roads being crap, but they love their tax cuts more.

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

[JPhillips]

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

[King of New York]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Um, there's somewhere between two and three trillion dollars in infrastructure that needs to be rebuilt or replaced because it's been let go for the past thirty years.

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.

[JPhillips]

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.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

The truly interesting thing is that despite the OMGSPENDING thing people scream about, actual government spending hasn't gone up all that much. Why? Because state and local governments have had to cut their spending. As a result, those cuts in state and local spending acts as an anchor on the somewhat meager stimulus that has been passed so far.

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

[Warhammer]

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.

[DaddyTorgo]

zing

[Greyroofoo]

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

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Most economists think the stimulus did exactly what was expected, raise GDP by a few points.

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.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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.

[Edward64]

Now from Petraeus ...

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

Gen. David Petraeus, the commander in Afghanistan, said the burning of Islam's holy books "could cause significant problems" for American troops overseas.

"It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort in Afghanistan," Petraeus said in a statement issued Monday.

With about 120,000 U.S. and NATO-led troops still battling al Qaeda and its allies in the Islamic fundamentalist Taliban movement, Petraeus warned that burning Qurans "is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems -- not just here, but everywhere in the world we are engaged with the Islamic community."

Petraeus said he was concerned by the political repercussions of the church's plan.

"Even the rumor that it might take place has sparked demonstrations such as the one that took place in Kabul yesterday," he said. "Were the actual burning to take place, the safety of our soldiers and civilians would be put in jeopardy and accomplishment of the mission would be made more difficult."

He said extremists would use images of burning Qurans to inflame public opinion and incite violence.

"And this would, again, put our troopers and civilians in jeopardy and undermine our efforts to accomplish the critical mission here in Afghanistan," he said.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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

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

The U.S. economy stands a 31% chance of double-dipping into recession in the next year.
That's the average of the predictions by economists, CEOs, chief investment officers, portfolio managers and chief strategists of some of the world's largest traditional and hedge fund managers. Collectively, their companies manage $7.2 trillion.

[Edward64]

$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

WASHINGTON (CNNMoney.com) -- In another move aimed at stabilizing the still-shaky economy, President Barack Obama on Wednesday will introduce a new $200 billion tax cut giving businesses across the country an incentive to buy new equipment in the short term, according to a senior administration official.

The tax cut would allow businesses to write off 100% of new investments in plants and equipment made between now and the end of 2011, according to the senior administration official.

The new tax cut will be in addition to a $100 billion permanent extension of the business tax credit for research and development, as well as $50 billion in new infrastructure spending included in a package that the president will officially unveil Wednesday during an economic speech in Cleveland, Ohio.