US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

[Coito ergo sum]

Obama 41% - Ron Paul 37%..... http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... on_paul_37

[Coito ergo sum]

Okay then... I will tell you that you're entirely incorrect that we're worse off now than we were two / two-and-a-half years ago. THAT is completely incorrect.

The US is no longer in negative growth territory - and hasn't been since spring/summer 2009. The recovery is weak, to be sure, and that's a perfectly valid argument for why you're happy to heap tons of blame on Obama, but the notion that things are still getting WORSE is completely, mathematically, indisputably untrue. The growth rate in 2009 was -4.1%. The growth rate in 2010 was 2.8%. The recession is, in fact, over.

.

BAD: GDP Misses Estimates At 1.3%, Q1 Revised Down To Just 0.4%

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/q2-advan ... z1TV0frKKy

Personal consumption, which was expected to grow by 0.8%, only grew by 0.1%.

Stocks diving now over 1% in the pre-market.

Consumer spending, which accounts for about 70 percent of U.S. economic activity, decelerated sharply to a 0.1 percent rate -- the weakest since the recession ended two years ago.http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/ ... I420110729

Economy
African-American Middle Class Eroding As Unemployment Rate Soars
By John Roberts

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/28/af ... z1TV2IyDDA

[Ian]

Okay then... I will tell you that you're entirely incorrect that we're worse off now than we were two / two-and-a-half years ago. THAT is completely incorrect.

The US is no longer in negative growth territory - and hasn't been since spring/summer 2009. The recovery is weak, to be sure, and that's a perfectly valid argument for why you're happy to heap tons of blame on Obama, but the notion that things are still getting WORSE is completely, mathematically, indisputably untrue. The growth rate in 2009 was -4.1%. The growth rate in 2010 was 2.8%. The recession is, in fact, over.

.

BAD: GDP Misses Estimates At 1.3%, Q1 Revised Down To Just 0.4%

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/q2-advan ... z1TV0frKKy

Personal consumption, which was expected to grow by 0.8%, only grew by 0.1%.

Stocks diving now over 1% in the pre-market.

Consumer spending, which accounts for about 70 percent of U.S. economic activity, decelerated sharply to a 0.1 percent rate -- the weakest since the recession ended two years ago.http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/ ... I420110729

Economy
African-American Middle Class Eroding As Unemployment Rate Soars
By John Roberts

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/28/af ... z1TV2IyDDA

The Q1 revision is a lousy piece of news. The Q2 numbers show a growth rate of 1.3%, though. Will those be revised downwards too in a few months? I don't know. Nevertheless, all of the above numbers are still in positive territory. Post again when they switch to negative.

The argument that the economic recovery is weaker than it could be is perfectly valid, though, and that's what the GOP will almost certainly be running on in 2012. But the argument that things are getting quantifiably worse, and that the conditions are largely the President's doing, is a poor one. I would not only call it a weak position, I'd call it invalid. One can bring up calculations like the misery index and a few other interesting points, but so long as there's positive GDP growth, I'd say that trumps the details. Maybe the double-dip is ready to happen, but it simply hasn't happened yet. A recession has a rather specific definition: two or more consecutive quarters of negative growth. In over two years, there hasn't been one quarter of negative growth. You could be right that it's coming any time now, but you've been saying that for quite a while.

And of course today's stocks are showing a 1% loss in pre-market! There's this little news story about a debt-ceiling showdown going on in DC... something about US creditworthiness being in jeopardy. If a deal is reached and the deficit reduction package comes in at least at, say, $2T over the next ten years, investors will thereafter be acting quite a bit differently. Should a deal like that happen, try posting again a week from now.

[Warren Dew]

If a deal is reached and the deficit reduction package comes in at least at, say, $2T over the next ten years, investors will thereafter be acting quite a bit differently.

Doubtful. $2T in cuts over 10 years is a drop in the bucket compared to $2.7T in added debt over only 2 years - and that's assuming the cuts actually materialize in the out years, which is far from certain.

In the longer term, the biggest threat to the U.S. government's credit rating is the size of the deficit.

[Coito ergo sum]

Okay then... I will tell you that you're entirely incorrect that we're worse off now than we were two / two-and-a-half years ago. THAT is completely incorrect.

The US is no longer in negative growth territory - and hasn't been since spring/summer 2009. The recovery is weak, to be sure, and that's a perfectly valid argument for why you're happy to heap tons of blame on Obama, but the notion that things are still getting WORSE is completely, mathematically, indisputably untrue. The growth rate in 2009 was -4.1%. The growth rate in 2010 was 2.8%. The recession is, in fact, over.

.

BAD: GDP Misses Estimates At 1.3%, Q1 Revised Down To Just 0.4%

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/q2-advan ... z1TV0frKKy

Personal consumption, which was expected to grow by 0.8%, only grew by 0.1%.

Stocks diving now over 1% in the pre-market.

Consumer spending, which accounts for about 70 percent of U.S. economic activity, decelerated sharply to a 0.1 percent rate -- the weakest since the recession ended two years ago.http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/ ... I420110729

Economy
African-American Middle Class Eroding As Unemployment Rate Soars
By John Roberts

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/28/af ... z1TV2IyDDA

The Q1 revision is a lousy piece of news. The Q2 numbers show a growth rate of 1.3%, though. Will those be revised downwards too in a few months? I don't know. Nevertheless, all of the above numbers are still in positive territory. Post again when they switch to negative.

They are shit numbers. They don't have to be negative to be shit.

The argument that the economic recovery is weaker than it could be is perfectly valid,

The argument that there really hasn't been a recovery is also perfectly valid. The fact that the GDP went slightly positive is only one factor in the economy. The fact that unemployment went up to 10.1%, then dropped to 9.1% and then started inching back up, is not really much of a "recovery" if indeed it even is one. The deficit has only broadened and increased, the debt is through the roof and threatening our bond rating, and American industry is still declining....etc.

though, and that's what the GOP will almost certainly be running on in 2012.

They will likely be running on the assertion that what Obama did made things worse, and certainly did not help.

But the argument that things are getting quantifiably worse, and that the conditions are largely the President's doing, is a poor one. I would not only call it a weak position, I'd call it invalid. One can bring up calculations like the misery index and a few other interesting points, but so long as there's positive GDP growth, I'd say that trumps the details.

It didn't when Bush was President. I remember folks on the Democrat side on Rationalia and RDF focusing mostly on the unemployment numbers, and claiming that the 5% unemployment rate was completely unacceptable and indicated that the economy sucked ass because people weren't working, and that the GOP "cooked the books" to make the unemployment rate look that low because the "real" unemployment rate was double that. Now, however, when a Democrat President is in office, we don't hear that argument at all.

Maybe the double-dip is ready to happen, but it simply hasn't happened yet.

There has to be real improvement in the middle for there to be a second dip. We had sort of a pause - and 0.4 GDP growth in the first quarter is not much different than zero. And, we'll see about the revisions to the second quarter. Unemployment rates barely dropped. Industry has not been rebounding. I mean, other than pumping the economy full of new dollars and bonds, and propping up the banks, the indications are across the board bad.

A recession has a rather specific definition: two or more consecutive quarters of negative growth.

Sure - that's the economic definition of a "recession" however, the economy doesn't have to be in a technical recession to suck royal ass. Remember, lots of folks in your camp, the Democrat camp, were calling the economy in 2006 and thereabouts a really, really bad economy, and the economy then was far better than it is now.

In over two years, there hasn't been one quarter of negative growth. You could be right that it's coming any time now, but you've been saying that for quite a while.

I don't just limit the economy sucking to whether GDP is negative or positive. And, I submit, neither would you if another party was in the White House.

And of course today's stocks are showing a 1% loss in pre-market! There's this little news story about a debt-ceiling showdown going on in DC... something about US creditworthiness being in jeopardy.

The creditworthiness has to do with the "debt" not the debt ceiling.

If a deal is reached and the deficit reduction package comes in at least at, say, $2T over the next ten years, investors will thereafter be acting quite a bit differently. Should a deal like that happen, try posting again a week from now.

Doubtful. That would be seen as the total joke it is, since nothing the democrats offer will reduce actual spending, just "projected future spending." More accounting gimmicks.

We'll see about the 1.3 GDP number and whether that one will stand, and unemployment, and underemployment, etc. And, when a hefty tax hike comes into play, you can bet that Obama's predication that raising taxes during a down economy is not the right thing to do will certainly come true.

[Coito ergo sum]

If a deal is reached and the deficit reduction package comes in at least at, say, $2T over the next ten years, investors will thereafter be acting quite a bit differently.

Doubtful. $2T in cuts over 10 years is a drop in the bucket compared to $2.7T in added debt over only 2 years - and that's assuming the cuts actually materialize in the out years, which is far from certain. probable.

In the longer term, the biggest threat to the U.S. government's credit rating is the size of the deficit.

Bingo. The debt ceiling deadline is rouse. It's the chicken-little deadline that says "we must do something by this date or it's the end of the world." That will provide all parties concerned the political cover to cut some stupid deal at the "last minute" and all sides will claim that they did the responsible thing and saved the economy from collapse. Then both sides will scramble for the high ground and get the credit for getting it done, and hope to parlay it into votes.

[Coito ergo sum]

Country in economic malaise: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/rei ... wn-congres
Harry Reid says "The extremists have locked down the White House. They’re not able to do their work." Now - how the hell has that happened? The White House is run by Democrats. Nobody can "lock it down" so it can't do its work, unless the President allows it. What the hell?

You know - that's not a good sign. LOL - "the bullies won't let the WHITE HOUSE do it's job..." what a fucking joke.

Code: Select all

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is trying to gain support for his bill that would increase the debt ceiling – or the amount the government can borrow. The Boehner bill would increase the ceiling by $1 trillion and require another debt ceiling vote in early 2012 that would require an agreement on more cuts.

LOL - that's what the Democrats want to run on opposing. They say the Republicans will not compromise - but, the 'publicans have agreed to TRILLION dollar debt limit increase, and want cuts to spending. We all know the reason the Dems don't want it. They don't want to cut spending.

[Ian]

In the longer term, the biggest threat to the U.S. government's credit rating is the size of the deficit.

Bingo. The debt ceiling deadline is rouse. It's the chicken-little deadline that says "we must do something by this date or it's the end of the world." That will provide all parties concerned the political cover to cut some stupid deal at the "last minute" and all sides will claim that they did the responsible thing and saved the economy from collapse. Then both sides will scramble for the high ground and get the credit for getting it done, and hope to parlay it into votes.

Guess what? We all agree!

[Coito ergo sum]

In the longer term, the biggest threat to the U.S. government's credit rating is the size of the deficit.

Bingo. The debt ceiling deadline is rouse. It's the chicken-little deadline that says "we must do something by this date or it's the end of the world." That will provide all parties concerned the political cover to cut some stupid deal at the "last minute" and all sides will claim that they did the responsible thing and saved the economy from collapse. Then both sides will scramble for the high ground and get the credit for getting it done, and hope to parlay it into votes.

Guess what? We all agree!

That's the saddest part of all. I really am embarrassed for our country right now. Never before in my entire life have I gotten as much of an impression of a dearth of competence in our government than at the present time. In past decades, there have always been those in government that I sort of thought had the competence, ability, know-how, and leadership gravitas to get it done. Today, it's like the best and the brightest shun government and we get tool-bags like Boehner and Reid and Pelosi as our top politicians. They don't know much, and they are just basically suits stuffed with papier mache'.

Where is Kennedy, Reagan, Tip O'Neal -- even Clinton - with all his failings - Clinton had a certain gravitas about him. You knew he could handle himself in a room with any world leader, and you knew he had the mental acuity to lead us through problems and tasks. Today - I don't get it from anyone - Boehner and Reid? No way - the sound stupid and have zero charisma or gravitas. Don't get me started on the Palin/Bachmann/O'Donnell crowd - bunch of fucking morons. And, Pelosi? Fucking idiot.

And, you know, I know I'm going to, of course, get shit from his devotees - but, Obama? Really? Does anyone STILL find this guy to be something special?

[Ian]

I still find Obama to be impressive. Just speaking in terms of this issue, have a look at the back-to-back national addresses the other night. Obama came out with a even-keeled tone and said the word "compromise" at least ten times. Boehner then came our downright angry, and flat-out LIED about Obama's proposals (which called for deficit reduction via 83% spending cuts) by saying he the President's idea of a balanced budget is to just get more revenue so he can spend more. Liar.

But to be fair to Boehner, I know it's just a PR stunt to try to satisfy the Tea Party. Neither major party is blameless for this mess, but the GOP gets the lion's share of the blame for being the most unwilling to budge from their own ideology. This is not remotely debateable. Not all of the GOP of course, but the 60 or so Tea Party lunatics (whom I consider half a step down from domestic terrorists at this point) make it awfully hard for the rest of the party to act rationally. The Democrats are worried about the general election, as they should - but the Republicans are worried more about the primaries. If 2010 proved anything, it's that established politicians can be driven out by totally unqualified nobodies wio happen to have opinions to the right of the guy trying to get re-elected.

Beyond the parties and the primaries process, nobody gets off scot-free from blame for all the partisanship. Much of the media ought to be ashamed of themselves. Many ordinary people as well.

Some other opinions on how miserably dysfunctional this Congress really is:
https://www.peoplesunited.com/portal/site/peoples/

[Coito ergo sum]

I still find Obama to be impressive. Just speaking in terms of this issue, have a look at the back-to-back national addresses the other night. Obama came out with a even-keeled tone and said the word "compromise" at least ten times.

I honestly feel differently about his speeches. I did not hear any of that. He's a good deliverer of lines, of course, but he speaks in generalities, and always the left side of his mouth takes away what the right side gives. You wind up with nothing. A lot of light, but no heat. Sure, he "said" compromise a lot, but he's not the one trying to compromise. The White House has not offered a plan.

Boehner then came our downright angry, and flat-out LIED about Obama's proposals (which called for deficit reduction via 83% spending cuts) by saying he the President's idea of a balanced budget is to just get more revenue so he can spend more. Liar.

Obama doesn't really have a proposal. The only budget proposal President Obama has publicly revealed in 2011 would, according to the Congressional Budget Office, increase the deficit by $26 billion this year, $83 billion next year, and $2.7 trillion over the next decade.

But to be fair to Boehner, I know it's just a PR stunt to try to satisfy the Tea Party. Neither major party is blameless for this mess, but the GOP gets the lion's share of the blame for being the most unwilling to budge from their own ideology.

How about handing some blame to the party that is most willing to spend money?

This is not remotely debateable.

Of course it is debatable - just SAYING compromise doesn't mean you're compromising - please - what "compromise" has been offered by the Democrats?

Not all of the GOP of course, but the 60 or so Tea Party lunatics (whom I consider half a step down from domestic terrorists at this point) make it awfully hard for the rest of the party to act rationally. The Democrats are worried about the general election, as they should - but the Republicans are worried more about the primaries. If 2010 proved anything, it's that established politicians can be driven out by totally unqualified nobodies wio happen to have opinions to the right of the guy trying to get re-elected.

Beyond the parties and the primaries process, nobody gets off scot-free from blame for all the partisanship. Much of the media ought to be ashamed of themselves. Many ordinary people as well.

Some other opinions on how miserably dysfunctional this Congress really is:
https://www.peoplesunited.com/portal/site/peoples/

I agree with most of what you wrote in these last 2 paragraphs - but I didn't read the peoplesunited link.

[Coito ergo sum]

And, remember President Obama said, “The only bottom line that I have is that we have to extend this debt ceiling through the next election, into 2013." Why the heck do you think that's his fucking bottom line? Because it gets this whole astronomically increasing debt past the debt ceiling debacle past the 2012 election. It's fucking sickening. White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley said, “The president's position is, yes, let's move forward. If there's two steps, fine. But do not have a step in the second part that lets the political system once again show its dysfunction. Get this deficit ceiling put off until after the election . . . .” Asked by David Gregory on “Meet the Press,” “All right, I just want to be clear. The President would veto a plan if it does not extend the debt ceiling into 2013?” Daley replied, “Yes.” And on “Fox News Sunday,” Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner bluntly said, “We have to take that threat off the table through the election.” Google the quotes. It's all electioneering.

[Ian]

This is not remotely debateable.

Of course it is debatable - just SAYING compromise doesn't mean you're compromising - please - what "compromise" has been offered by the Democrats?

Have a look at what's being offered up by Reid. It doesn't include a dime in tax increases. Does that sound like a hardline Democratic plan? It's a plan designed to garner support from conservatives, so it'll be easier to pass and mold into a final compromised package. And that's well to the right of what polling says the public wants to see. Heck, I've heard from Tea Party types who've said they'd sign Reid's bill as it is, so long as a Balanced Budget Amendment is added (which would pretty much kill it for Democrats, and I also think a BBA is a well-intentioned but ultimately terrible idea).

Yes, the GOP is the party less willing to compromise. Hell, the far right is priding themselves on this. Why else did the House vote come tonight and not yesterday? Because Boehner couldn't get the teabaggers in line. He had to add a BBA to his PR stunt package before sending it to the floor, thus making the package even less attractive to Democrats. Have we been reading stories about how Obama is having such a hard time getting his party to cooperate, about Pelosi telling her people to get their asses in line? Not so much.

Not all of the GOP of course, but the 60 or so Tea Party lunatics (whom I consider half a step down from domestic terrorists at this point) make it awfully hard for the rest of the party to act rationally. The Democrats are worried about the general election, as they should - but the Republicans are worried more about the primaries. If 2010 proved anything, it's that established politicians can be driven out by totally unqualified nobodies wio happen to have opinions to the right of the guy trying to get re-elected.

Beyond the parties and the primaries process, nobody gets off scot-free from blame for all the partisanship. Much of the media ought to be ashamed of themselves. Many ordinary people as well.

Some other opinions on how miserably dysfunctional this Congress really is:
https://www.peoplesunited.com/portal/site/peoples/

I agree with most of what you wrote in these last 2 paragraphs - but I didn't read the peoplesunited link.

I got it from Foreign Policy magazine. I didn't notice the switched link. Try this instead:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... /super_bad
Worst. Congress. Ever.

Another note on how the partisanship got to be as bad as it is, and you might like to hear this one: We're still living in a Republican Era. Even when the Dems had the House between the 2006 and 2010 midterms, it was largely because a wave of Blue Dog Democrats arrived in '06 and '08. And there weren't too many primary challenges from the far left, with ultra-liberals replacing establishment Dems prior to victory in the general elections. The same cannot be said of the GOP in the 2010 primaries; how many long-serving Republicans were primaried (that's become a verb in common useage in DC) by far-right ideologues, many of them with no experience or understanding of the federal government at all. Shit, look at Senator Bob Bennet from Utah - one of the most right-wing guys around, who was successfully primaried from his right. And in November, the Blue Dogs were the Dems who took the heaviest losses. So now we've got a Congress that looks like a valley in terms of ideological opinions, representing a country that still looks more like a hill. But the Congressional valley is steeper on the Republican side.

I'm starting to think this might make some real sense:
http://www.americanselect.org/about
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2 ... ysfunction

[Ian]

And, remember President Obama said, “The only bottom line that I have is that we have to extend this debt ceiling through the next election, into 2013." Why the heck do you think that's his fucking bottom line? Because it gets this whole astronomically increasing debt past the debt ceiling debacle past the 2012 election. It's fucking sickening. White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley said, “The president's position is, yes, let's move forward. If there's two steps, fine. But do not have a step in the second part that lets the political system once again show its dysfunction. Get this deficit ceiling put off until after the election . . . .” Asked by David Gregory on “Meet the Press,” “All right, I just want to be clear. The President would veto a plan if it does not extend the debt ceiling into 2013?” Daley replied, “Yes.” And on “Fox News Sunday,” Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner bluntly said, “We have to take that threat off the table through the election.” Google the quotes. It's all electioneering.

And that's 100% fine with me. Would we want to se this come up again in the middle of the GOP primaries or during the Presidential campaign? I sure as shit wouldn't. Maybe if the debt ceiling came up on its own, with no requirements to attach budget plans to it - y'know, the way it used to be done. But, the Republicans won't let that happen.

[Warren Dew]

I would like to see it come up again around the time the senate is debating the budget this fall.

Entitlements really need to be cut, and holding the debt limit hostage is really the only way that will be done.