U.S. 2012 Election

[Edward Campbell]

I doubt that, since I don't think it ever happened. Oddly enough, a whole lot of conservative hacks seem to throw that word around in connection to the President.

I can find one reference to the President, then a candidate, referring to President Bush's borrowing from China to fund tax cuts as unpatriotic. That's a lot different than calling him a traitor.

It's a political campaign; they are retail politicians out to buy votes; they lie; in fact they lie like sidewalks: Democrats, most of 'em, lie; Republicans lie, too, in exactly the same proportion as Democrats. Their partisans, including Canadian partisans, for both sides, who have little stake and less knowledge also lie - and that's a little sad  because the stakes, as Henry Kissinger said, are really low.

Barack Obama is a second rate president - he will never get any better; Mitt Romney might be a little bit better - or maybe worse. But there are no others choices so Americans must select between Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber.

We, Canada as a country, have interests, even vital interests in America, but the outcome of this election is unlikely to advance (or retard) very many of them ~ in fact there are so many and they are so broad that only the most exceptional (bad or good) US president is likely to have much impact.

 

[Redeye]

Not a traitor, but unpatriotic for allowig the debt to rise $4 trillion dollars in eight years. If that is the case, then it must be even more unpatriotic to raise the debt $5 trillion in three years, no?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q

Same question I put out before. Which specific policy moves by President Obama contributed to that? And how much of that is to do with the policies of the previous administration. Has the rate of growth of defict slowed? Yes. That's a start. Did President Obama magically manage to reverse a brutal situation that was a combination of bad policy and global economy catastrophe? Not really. But I doubt anyone could have. The realist in me realizes that. Comparing the President's performance to realistic assessments of the climate makes it a little more tolerable.

 

[Haletown]

So, a guy who works for a right wing think tank and a right wing economics institute bearing the name of the guy who came up with "supply side" opposes it. Wow. Am I ever shocked. Moving right along then...

well since you are such a big fan of the CBO,  you do realize they have written more than one report on Obmacare?

"President Obama's landmark healthcare overhaul is projected to cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, reports the Congressional Budget Office, a hefty sum more than the $940 billion estimated when the healthcare legislation was signed into law. To put it mildly, ObamaCare's projected net worth is far off from its original estimate -- in fact, about $820 billion off. "

That's $Trillion with a capital T.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/21327

 

[a_majoor]

Since the key to the election is the economy, the Democrats are going to be running with one foot in a bucket. The last times the economic indicators were like this were at the end of the Carter Administration, leading to a resounding defeat. There is no need to look any further to explain the Democrats obsession (and the Legacy media's framing the narrative) with non issues and avoiding discussions about the economy. Just looking at the timelines (recession ended five months into the administration, incomes declined 5% after the "recovery" etc.), and of course the infamous promise of how the stimulus was going to save the economy and reduce unemployment, complete with a graphic the Dems now hope no one is looking at (notice too the dotted lines indicating the real unemployment figures, and the U3 of 11% at the upper right):

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/090412-624523-were-not-better-off-under-obama.htm

Better Off? Let's Count the Ways We're Not

Posted 09/04/2012 06:50 PM ET

Economic Conditions: All weekend, Democratic party leaders kept fumbling their answer to a simple question: Are we better off than we were four years ago? There's a good reason for that: We're not.

It wasn't until Monday that the campaign was able to figure out how to answer the question, with Obama's deputy campaign manager, Stephanie Cutter, saying, "Absolutely."

Obama's argument is simple: The economy was headed for a second Great Depression when he took office — hemorrhaging GDP and jobs. His stimulus, the auto bailouts and so on, prevented that, and the economy has since been slowly digging out of the massive ditch into which President Bush drove it. Thus, Obama says, he deserves an "incomplete" grade.

It's quite a stretch that Obama stopped another depression. The recession ended just five months into his first term, before most of his policies had a chance to take effect. It's an even bigger stretch to say that people's lives have been improving during the 3-year-old Obama "recovery," which started in June 2009.

By most measures the country isn't making slow progress; it's falling further behind. Some examples:

• Median incomes: These have fallen 7.3% since Obama took office, which translates into an average of $4,000. Since the so-called recovery started, median incomes continued to fall, dropping $2,544, or 4.8%.

• Long-term unemployed: More than three years into Obama's recovery, 811,000 more still fall into this category than when the recession ended.

• Poverty: The poverty rate climbed to 15.1% in 2010, up from 14.3% in 2009, and economists think it may have hit 15.7% last year, highest since the 1960s.
mp3Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast

• Food stamps: There are 11.8 million more people on food stamps since Obama's recovery started.

• Disability: More than 1 million workers have been added to Social Security's disability program in the last three years.

• Gas prices: A gallon of gas cost $1.89 when Obama was sworn in. By June 2009, the price was $2.70. Today, it's $3.84.

• Misery Index: When Obama took office, the combination of unemployment and inflation stood at 7.83. Today it's 9.71.

• Union membership: Even unions are worse off under Obama, with membership dropping half a million between 2009 and 2011.

• Debt: Everyone is far worse off if you just look at the national debt. It has climbed more than $5 trillion under Obama, crossing $16 trillion for the first time on Tuesday and driving the U.S. credit rating down.

Ironically, the only people better off under Obama are corporate chieftains, who've seen corporate profits climb more than 50% under Obama's "recovery," and investors, who've benefited from a near-doubling in the Dow industrials from its March 2009 lows.

Given this record, we can only hope Obama doesn't have the chance to get a "complete" on his plans.

 

[2 Cdo]

Same question I put out before. Which specific policy moves by President Obama contributed to that? And how much of that is to do with the policies of the previous administration. Has the rate of growth of defict slowed? Yes. That's a start. Did President Obama magically manage to reverse a brutal situation that was a combination of bad policy and global economy catastrophe? Not really. But I doubt anyone could have. The realist in me realizes that. Comparing the President's performance to realistic assessments of the climate makes it a little more tolerable.

Yep, gotcha, Bush bad possibly evil whereas Obama is the chosen one who will lead to the promised land.  :

Everything bad on Obamas watch Bushes fault but anything good is all Obamas doing.

And you have the nerve to refer to others as hacks!  :rofl:

 

[Redeye]

Yep, gotcha, Bush bad possibly evil whereas Obama is the chosen one who will lead to the promised land.  :

Everything bad on Obamas watch Bushes fault but anything good is all Obamas doing.

And you have the nerve to refer to others as hacks!  :rofl:

Yeah, I never said that. At all. What I said, no one has refuted or actually countered. What specific policies of Obama drove the deficits during his administration. If you look at the numbers, the costs of the Iraq war (which Obama actually added into budget to reflect the true cost) and the Bush tax cuts were the major contributors. He attempted to ditch at least part of the Bush tax cuts and was stonewalled by Congress. So... what exactly is his culpability in terms of policies he promoted and/or enacted?

 

[a_majoor]

Same question I put out before. Which specific policy moves by President Obama contributed to that? And how much of that is to do with the policies of the previous administration. Has the rate of growth of defict slowed? Yes. That's a start. Did President Obama magically manage to reverse a brutal situation that was a combination of bad policy and global economy catastrophe? Not really. But I doubt anyone could have. The realist in me realizes that. Comparing the President's performance to realistic assessments of the climate makes it a little more tolerable.

So your argument is that as Cheif Executive, George W Bush carries the responsibility for letting the debt increase by $4 trillion over eight years, but Chief Executive Barrack Obama carries no responsibility for the debt rising $5 trillion over three years?

As for specifics, failing to present a budget that was acceptable to the House and Senate (100% voted against, a great example of bipartisanship) and also failing as chief executive to forcing the Democrat majority Senate to either pass the house budget or propose their own for 1200+ days (which oddly comes to before the 2010 midterms and encompasses the time of the Democrat supermajority), ignoring the Simpson-Bowles report, placing regulatory obstacles against the energy industry, slowing down economic growth and job creation, inducing regulatory uncertainty with Obamacare and other proposed tax increases, causing a capital strike as business reduces investment due to uncertainty...

 

[Redeye]

So your argument is that as Cheif Executive, George W Bush carries the responsibility for letting the debt increase by $4 trillion over eight years, but Chief Executive Barrack Obama carries no responsibility for the debt rising $5 trillion over three years?

As for specifics, failing to present a budget that was acceptable to the House and Senate (100% voted against, a great example of bipartisanship) and also failing as chief executive to forcing the Democrat majority Senate to either pass the house budget or propose their own for 1200+ days (which oddly comes to before the 2010 midterms and encompasses the time of the Democrat supermajority), ignoring the Simpson-Bowles report, placing regulatory obstacles against the energy industry, slowing down economic growth and job creation, inducing regulatory uncertainty with Obamacare and other proposed tax increases, causing a capital strike as business reduces investment due to uncertainty...

Obamacare created no real regulatory uncertainty. What it was intended to do is clear, and when it comes to taxes, they will clearly have to rise at some point.

I'd love to have seen a budget that could have passed both Houses that eliminated the deficit in a year. Or even in three years. But we all know that would have been impossible, especially since the "Democratic majority Senate" had only 57 seats which meant that the GOP were in a position to filibuster anything they didn't like, and they made clear their intention to do so. No chance any budget that would have been acceptable AND addressed the deficit was getting through. I don't even know where they could have started on one, given that things like defence which consume a massive chunk of federal spending are treated like a sacred cow.

 

[2 Cdo]

Obamacare created no real regulatory uncertainty. What it was intended to do is clear, and when it comes to taxes, they will clearly have to rise at some point.

I'd love to have seen a budget that could have passed both Houses that eliminated the deficit in a year. Or even in three years. But we all know that would have been impossible, especially since the "Democratic majority Senate" had only 57 seats which meant that the GOP were in a position to filibuster anything they didn't like, and they made clear their intention to do so. No chance any budget that would have been acceptable AND addressed the deficit was getting through. I don't even know where they could have started on one, given that things like defence which consume a massive chunk of federal spending are treated like a sacred cow.

So it's not Obamas fault.  :

 

[Haletown]

"Obamacare created no real regulatory uncertainty."

So the first round of new rules and regulations for ObamaCare - just the initial implementation runs to 13,000 pages.

That is a of uncertainty, a lot of "what the hell does that mean".

Because 13,000 pages of new lawyer/bureaucrat speak is the essence of uncertainty to any business.

 

[cupper]

Oh how the right loves to replay debunked half truths and lies.

Yes, it is true that the national average gas price was at $1.83 when Obama took office.

However, the price of gas "tanked" severely from a high of $4.12 in July 2008 to the low of $1.83 in Jan 2009.

Since then, prices have been on a slow continual rise back to where they would have been if the crash in Sept 2008 had not occurred.

While we're at it, let's put to rest the BS about Obama ending the work requirement for welfare, Obama's failure to prevent the closure of the Janesville GM plant, and the biggest piece of BS of them all, the Democratic Super Majority from 2009 to 2011.

 

[Haletown]

Obama's failure to prevent the closure of the Janesville GM plant

Obama quote:

"I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give the assistance you need to retool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another 100 years. So, that’s our priority… I want it to thrive right here in the United States of America, I want it to thrive right here in Janesville, Wisconsin. And that’s the future I will fight for as president of the United States of America.'

Ryan quote:

"“A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: `I believe that if our government is there to support you … this plant will be here for another hundred years.’ That’s what he said in 2008. Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year."

What Ryan said is 100% accurate. 

http://www.therightscoop.com/boom-new-romney-ad-exposes-obamas-empty-promises-to-janesville-plant/


If you want really big lies, what about Obama claiming he "saved the American auto industry" when what he did was screw over the Bondholders and bail out two of three unionized auto makers - GM & Chrysler.

He didn't bail out Ford, Toyota, Honda, Mazda, etc. 

By the way . .  before he bailed out the UAW's underwater pension plan, the bailout he uses to claim he saved the entire USA auto industry, GM employed about 90,000+.

They now employ about 60,000+.

All Hail the Savior!

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It's not vindictive. It's reality. It's also found on both sides, though far more on the right. Non-partisan sources suggest that there's little economic impact (positive OR negative) to Obamacare. That's reality. Selling any other story is simply not true.

Just your reality, not everyone else's.

Once more, just because it fits in your little niche, doesn't make it so.

Choose your words better and keep it civil.

That goes for everyone else here.

If it can't remain civil, we'll put it to bed and you'll all have to get lives.

That is all.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[tomahawk6]

The Dem's got alot of bad press because they took the word God out of their platform [it was mentioned in 2008] and to insert Jerusalem being the capital of Israel. The Chairman called for a voice vote to confirm the changes and here is what happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cncbOEoQbOg&feature=player_embedded

 

[ModlrMike]

That was an interesting exercise in democracy.

 

[vonGarvin]

Well, as Clint Eastwood proved, talking to empty chairs is nuts.  I guess that's why the DNC is moving indoors.
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/archives/sunnews/world/2012/09/20120905-165255.html

 

[Brad Sallows]

>So, a guy who works for a right wing think tank and a right wing economics institute bearing the name of the guy who came up with "supply side" opposes it. Wow. Am I ever shocked. Moving right along then...

Both arguably know the subject, so your failure to address the point is not a rebuttal.

 

[Brad Sallows]

US federal deficits:

2003: -$ 378 B
2004: -$ 413 B
2005: -$ 318 B
2006: -$ 248 B
2007: -$ 161 B
2008: -$ 459 B
2009: -$1413 B
2010: -$1293 B
2011: -$1299 B

Those are net - on-budget and off-budget - and include the effects of the wars, tax cuts, etc, etc.  See the trend prior to 2008 (when the economy went tits up)?  This is important, so pay attention: With all of the "Bush policies" in play, the deficit was very (relatively) small and tracking to flip to surplus in 2009 or 2010.  Also, TARP and ARRA were (supposed to be) one-time shots.  The answer to "why are the deficits so large?" has nothing to do with war spending or tax cuts.  It is entirely a consequence of revenue shortfall and increased spending.  (For those instinctively inclined to believe the pretty pictures that show "tax cuts" and "war costs", think very carefully about what I have just explained until you understand the meaning in particular of "revenue shortfall".)  Given the trend and the small 2007 deficit, there is no significant achievement in merely slowing growth - the question is why there is any growth at all after 2008/2009 (TARP and ARRA).  If there is any sort of measurable recovery (revenue growth at least keeping pace with minimum necessary spending growth due to population increase and inflation), if the one-time expenditures are over and done, and if there is no new spending in the myriad of new regulations (impossible, though: addition of regulation - Obamacare, Dodd-Frank in particular - means more cost), the deficits should have been successively smaller since 2009.  [Add: the 2012 deficit projection is -$1327 B in the OMB historical fiscal tables I used.]

The US economy and federal fiscal picture is badly pooched.  The Democrats wasted time with their wish-list items and wasted money cushioning the payrolls of their union friends, thinking the recovery would naturally occur and they could ride it to re-election.  Invalid assumption; big mistake; catastrophic outcome.  They had a shot to try their theories (remember the administration's economic dream-time?) and ****** it up, big time.  There is no time for a 4-year do-over.

 

[a_majoor]

More reasons that the Democrats won't answer the question "Are you better off than you were four years ago?". It is shameful that third world nations are now ahead of the United States on these metrics (but crony capitalism will do that):

http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/09/05/another-dismal-assessment-of-obamanomics-united-states-drops-to-7th-in-wefs-global-competitiveness-index/

International Liberty
Restraining Government in America and Around the World

Another Dismal Assessment of Obamanomics: United States Drops to 7th in WEF’s Global Competitiveness Index
September 5, 2012 by Dan Mitchell

Every year, I look forward to the annual releases of both Economic Freedom of the World and the Index of Economic Freedom. With their comprehensive rankings, these two publications enable interested parties to compare nations and see which countries are moving in the right direction.

As an American, I’m ashamed to say that these publications also show which nations are moving in the wrong direction. And the United States ranks poorly by this metric, having dropped from 3rd place to 10th place since 2000 according to Economic Freedom of the World.

The U.S. also has dropped to 10th place in the Index of Economic Freedom, and is now ranked only as a “mostly free” nation.

Some people dismiss these pieces of data because the two rankings are considered to reflect a pro-free market bias.

But the folks at the World Economic Forum surely can’t be pigeonholed as a bunch of small-government libertarians, and the WEF’s Global Competitiveness Report shows the same trend.

The United States took the top spot in the WEF’s Global Competitiveness Index as recently as 2007 and 2008, but then dropped to 2nd place in 2009.

I think Bush bears the full blame for that unfortunate development. But the decline has continued in recent years, and Obama deserves a good part of the blame for the drop to 4th place in 2010.

The U.S. then fell to 5th place last year, in part because of horrible scores for “Wastefulness of Government Spending” (68th place) and “Burden of Government Regulation” (49th place).

Given this dismal trend, I opened the just-released 2012 Report with considerable trepidation. And my fears were justified. The United States has now dropped to 7th place.

Here is some of what was said about America.

The United States continues the decline that began a few years ago, falling two more positions to take 7th place this year. Although many structural features continue to make its economy extremely productive, a number of escalating and unaddressed weaknesses have lowered the US ranking in recent years. …some weaknesses in particular areas have deepened since past assessments. The business community continues to be critical toward public and private institutions (41st). In particular, its trust in politicians is not strong (54th), perhaps not surprising in light of recent political disputes that threaten to push the country back into recession through automatic spending cuts. Business leaders also remain concerned about the government’s ability to maintain arms-length relationships with the private sector (59th), and consider that the government spends its resources relatively wastefully (76th). A lack of macroeconomic stability continues to be the country’s greatest area of weakness (111th, down from 90th last year).

For people who like to look at the glass as being 1/10th full, the U.S. does beat Portugal (116ht place) in the score for macroeconomic stability.

Here are a few additional highlights. Or lowlights might be a better word.

The U.S. scores 42nd in property rights, behind Namibia and Uruguay.
The U.S. ranks 59th in government favoritism, behind Guinea and Bolivia.
The U.S. scores 76th in wastefulness in government spending, behind Mali and Nicaragua.
The U.S. also is 76th in the burden of government regulation, behind Kenya and Thailand.
The U.S. scores 69th in extent of taxation, behind Gambia and Ethiopia.
The U.S. ranks 103rd for total tax rate, behind Greece (!) and Philippines.
Now time for some caveats. The WEF report is based on survey results, for better or worse, and it also probably is best characterized as a measure of the attitudes of the business community rather than an estimate of economic freedom.

Regardless of limitations, though, it is a good publication. As such, it is downright embarrassing to see the U.S. fare so poorly in key indices – particularly when third-world nations score better.

We know that small government and free markets are the keys to prosperity. Bush took us in the wrong direction, however, and Obama is repeating his mistakes.

So don’t be surprised to see the American score decline further as additional reports are issued.

==================================================

Welcome Instapundit readers. Thanks, Glenn. Since the declining score in the U.S. is partly due to poor fiscal policy, you may want to peruse this video primer on the size of government.

 

[Old Sweat]

Here is a link to the ABC News website that discusses Robert Woodward's new book. In it he reveals that the President and the Speaker of the House last year were very close to a major budget deal that would have started the process of controlling the deficit. At the last moment the deal collapsed when the President went a demand too far in his search for revenue.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bob-woodward-book-debt-deal-collapse-led-pure/story?id=17104635#.UEjCfXxxMuU

I wonder if the timing of the books release is pure happenstance?