Disgusted With Obama Administration.

• believer

  

  sleeper;1009148 wrote:I'd personally like to know if there are any federal programs that operate in the black.

  According to Keynesianists, gubmint programs work best when they run in the red because it's good for the economy.
  
  Only private sector, for-profit businesses are required to improve efficiencies, balance a budget, and produce gains for the shareholders in order to remain viable despite gubmint over-regulation and interference.
  
  See how that works?
• Skyhook79

  

  http://www.policymic.com/articles/video-obama-turned-to-jon-corzine-for-economic-advice
  
  
  Just for the lutz
• gut

  sleeper;1009148 wrote:I'd personally like to know if there are any federal programs that operate in the black. I fear I may already know the answer to this question.

  You don't leave a surplus in any of those programs or you face a budget reduction (read: reduced increase in govt terms) in the next fiscal year.
  
  I don't think any one opposes certain social aspects (i.e. safety nets and programs for the destitute). Problem is in recent years those programs have been grossly expanded beyond the most needy and become more about income redistribution. That's when you create problems with incentives. When someone crunches the numbers and realizes they can work harder for $10k more, but won't make any difference in their after-tax income/wealth what are they going to choose?
• gut

  believer;1009370 wrote:According to Keynesianists, gubmint programs work best when they run in the red because it's good for the economy.

  That's really a bastardization of the theory. Keynesian economics doesn't really call for "stimulus" spending, but rather consistent govt spending maintained, which results in deficit spending in lean times and then surpluses in good times. We never run the surpluses, though, and it's probably why it's failing so miserably this time around because people have finally wisened up to the reality that future tax increases as a result of the deficit spending are inevitable. Why it has arguably worked in the past is because people did not behave rationally as predicted - i.e. offsetting the deficit spending by further reducing their own in anticipation of future tax increases.
  
  A more liberal view would say tax cuts or stimulus spending expands economic growth (the multiplier effect) creating value into future years, but again a fundamental necessary component of the theory is that at some point those resulting gains have to go to footing the bill extended in prior years. Year after year after year of deficit spending is not something you can find justification for in any economic theory.
• believer

  

  gut;1010271 wrote:That's really a bastardization of the theory. Keynesian economics doesn't really call for "stimulus" spending, but rather consistent govt spending maintained, which results in deficit spending in lean times and then surpluses in good times.

  Understood. I was hoping there was an obvious hint of sarcasm in my original post.
  

  gut;1010271 wrote:A more liberal view would say tax cuts or stimulus spending expands economic growth (the multiplier effect) creating value into future years, but again a fundamental necessary component of the theory is that at some point those resulting gains have to go to footing the bill extended in prior years. Year after year after year of deficit spending is not something you can find justification for in any economic theory.

  I'm not sure that tax cuts are "liberal" views, but this would be my preferred option. I still believe that supply-side economics is the commonsensical approach. Tax relief is more likely to assist in growing the economy than direct stimulus IMHO. A sustained, growing economy ultimately returns more revenues to the tax coffers.
  
  Direct stimulus adds debt directly and is not unlike feeding a bowl of sugar to a hungry child. Tax cuts may not taste is good, but it tends to have more nutritional value and has far fewer dental bills.
• believer

  

  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2072467/Obama-predicts-US-unemployment-drop-lowest-came-White-House.html
  
  Does anyone else remember in the not too distant past when an incumbent POTUS was worried about his re-election chances if unemployment was above 5%? Now the Appointed One wants us to get excited if unemployment drops to 8%. Even if it does drop to 8%, does he really believe that it will be sufficient reason for us run to the ballot box and give him 4 more years?
  

  No matter how well we’re steering the ship,...

  
  
  Really? :rolleyes:
• I Wear Pants

  Employment under Bush's first term when up a higher percentage than it has under Obama's first term and conservatives were okay with the "well it would have been worse if not for the tax cuts" argument back then what is now so different with the "it would have been worse without the stimulus" argument?
• gut

  I Wear Pants;1011170 wrote:Employment under Bush's first term when up a higher percentage than it has under Obama's first term and conservatives were okay with the "well it would have been worse if not for the tax cuts" argument back then what is now so different with the "it would have been worse without the stimulus" argument?

  That's right. If the economy continues to suck maybe enough more people will quit looking for work to give the appearance Obama got something done with a dropping unemployment rate.
  
  Either that, or maybe Obama's czars can create enough new govt jobs to make a difference.
• BGFalcons82

  

  I Wear Pants;1011170 wrote:Employment under Bush's first term when up a higher percentage than it has under Obama's first term and conservatives were okay with the "well it would have been worse if not for the tax cuts" argument back then what is now so different with the "it would have been worse without the stimulus" argument?

  Prove your statement: "it would have been worse without the stimulus".
  
  If you can't, then what is Obama's economic strategy for the next 4 years, hmmm? More of the same? What would that be....$1,500,000,000,000 deficit spending for 4 more years so he can get the national debt over $20,000,000,000,000.00??? How's that workin out for everyone? Oh wait...I forgot...it's all the fault of the weather and earthquakes and Greece and Italy and BP and everything else NOT part of the Obama Administration's policies.
  
  If you listen to the idiot-boy, Bush is STILL President and he just needs more time to fix 8 years of Bushdom.
• BoatShoes

  BGFalcons82;1011307 wrote:Prove your statement: "it would have been worse without the stimulus".

  
  
  
  
• BGFalcons82

  

  Put a thousand graphs up, BoatShoes. Put a million up. Fact is, you can't prove squat. What would happen if...
  
  Buckner fielded the ball?
  Kennedy doesn't turn down Dealey Plaza?
  King doesn't stay in Memphis?
  GM was allowed to go under further bankruptcy protection, re-organize, are re-emerge as a non-union car maker?
  
  I can write more if you like, but you get the point. You can't prove a hypothetical situation. Truth is, we'll never know how much it hurt, harmed, saved, or torched our future. Why not try and answer my question before attempting to answer an impossible question? What is Barry's economic plan for the next 4 years? Is it...
  
  Submitting more budgets like he did the first quarter? You remember, the one that the Senate rejected 97-0.
  Submitting more budgets like he did the second quarter? You remember, the one he had to re-submit after Rep Ryan made him look like a mental midget.
  The Pass this Bill...Pass this Bill...Pass this Bill plan? You remember, the one that would slay the evil rich and create millions of jobs overnight.
  Stimulus 4? Why stop at a measley $800,000,000,000 and go for a real "crowd-pleaser"?
  Cap and Trade? You remember, the legislation he promised in 2008 that would necessarily cripple energy prices.
  
  What's it going to be? Why won't somebody with a microphone and a camera aks him? Why won't the press rake his economic skull through the hot bed of coals like they've done to Ryan, Cain, Gingrich, Paul, and on and on?
• believer

  

  I Wear Pants;1011170 wrote:Employment under Bush's first term when up a higher percentage than it has under Obama's first term and conservatives were okay with the "well it would have been worse if not for the tax cuts" argument back then what is now so different with the "it would have been worse without the stimulus" argument?

  C'mon......the unemployment rate at the time Bush ran for re-election was 5.5%. Granted it was at 6.3% in 2003 but dropped to 5.5% in a year.
  
  The Bammer has been riding back and forth between 9 and 10% for 3 years and counting. I have a hunch he'd give up his leftist testicle to be at 5.5% this coming fall. :rolleyes:
• BoatShoes

  BGFalcons82;1011411 wrote:Put a thousand graphs up, BoatShoes. Put a million up. Fact is, you can't prove squat. What would happen if...
  
  Buckner fielded the ball?
  Kennedy doesn't turn down Dealey Plaza?
  King doesn't stay in Memphis?
  GM was allowed to go under further bankruptcy protection, re-organize, are re-emerge as a non-union car maker?
  
  I can write more if you like, but you get the point. You can't prove a hypothetical situation. Truth is, we'll never know how much it hurt, harmed, saved, or torched our future. Why not try and answer my question before attempting to answer an impossible question? What is Barry's economic plan for the next 4 years? Is it...
  
  Submitting more budgets like he did the first quarter? You remember, the one that the Senate rejected 97-0.
  Submitting more budgets like he did the second quarter? You remember, the one he had to re-submit after Rep Ryan made him look like a mental midget.
  The Pass this Bill...Pass this Bill...Pass this Bill plan? You remember, the one that would slay the evil rich and create millions of jobs overnight.
  Stimulus 4? Why stop at a measley $800,000,000,000 and go for a real "crowd-pleaser"?
  Cap and Trade? You remember, the legislation he promised in 2008 that would necessarily cripple energy prices.
  
  What's it going to be? Why won't somebody with a microphone and a camera aks him? Why won't the press rake his economic skull through the hot bed of coals like they've done to Ryan, Cain, Gingrich, Paul, and on and on?

  
  Your standard of proof is insurmountable. If Christ himself told you that the stimulus worked you would not believe. Your suggestion that we cannot know with very reasonable certainty things about the world, including economic policy, is nothing short of ridiculous.
  
  The simple fact is you don't care if it worked. You would be against it anyways.
• BGFalcons82

  

  BoatShoes;1011491 wrote:Your standard of proof is insurmountable. If Christ himself told you that the stimulus worked you would not believe. Your suggestion that we cannot know with very reasonable certainty things about the world, including economic policy, is nothing short of ridiculous.
  
  The simple fact is you don't care if it worked. You would be against it anyways.

  I suppose you can state with irrefutable fact what a "saved job" is too, right? You know...where the government statisticians can get inside 1,000,000 CEO's minds and determine whom got to keep their job and whom was laid off due exclusively and only because of Obama's divine stimulus plan. You know, if it worked as well as your graphs show, then he should be trumpeting this from the highest mountaintop to the lowest form of communication (A/K/A MSNBC). Where is the love of the plan from those that perpetuated it on all of us?
  
  Seriously, what statistics, what graphs, what divine mathematical formulas can be extracted in order to tell anyone what the economy would have been like without the feds spending $800,000,000,000 in borrowed/stolen/ne'er to be repaid funds? How would anyone know what would have happened if it hadn't been done? You know the answer, but you just can't stop yourself from martyring your cause and claiming even Christ can't change my mind when it is humanly impossible to prove anything you claim is hard/cold facts.
• I Wear Pants

  BGFalcons82;1011307 wrote:Prove your statement: "it would have been worse without the stimulus".
  
  If you can't, then what is Obama's economic strategy for the next 4 years, hmmm? More of the same? What would that be....$1,500,000,000,000 deficit spending for 4 more years so he can get the national debt over $20,000,000,000,000.00??? How's that workin out for everyone? Oh wait...I forgot...it's all the fault of the weather and earthquakes and Greece and Italy and BP and everything else NOT part of the Obama Administration's policies.
  
  If you listen to the idiot-boy, Bush is STILL President and he just needs more time to fix 8 years of Bushdom.

  I never said I thought either was a good argument. Just wondering why no one said "prove your statement" when it was said that the tax cuts are what stopped even more job losses.
• I Wear Pants

  believer;1011417 wrote:C'mon......the unemployment rate at the time Bush ran for re-election was 5.5%. Granted it was at 6.3% in 2003 but dropped to 5.5% in a year.
  
  The Bammer has been riding back and forth between 9 and 10% for 3 years and counting. I have a hunch he'd give up his leftist testicle to be at 5.5% this coming fall. :rolleyes:

  
• I Wear Pants

  BGFalcons82;1011411 wrote:Put a thousand graphs up, BoatShoes. Put a million up. Fact is, you can't prove squat. What would happen if...
  
  Buckner fielded the ball?
  Kennedy doesn't turn down Dealey Plaza?
  King doesn't stay in Memphis?
  GM was allowed to go under further bankruptcy protection, re-organize, are re-emerge as a non-union car maker?
  
  I can write more if you like, but you get the point. You can't prove a hypothetical situation. Truth is, we'll never know how much it hurt, harmed, saved, or torched our future. Why not try and answer my question before attempting to answer an impossible question? What is Barry's economic plan for the next 4 years? Is it...
  
  Submitting more budgets like he did the first quarter? You remember, the one that the Senate rejected 97-0.
  Submitting more budgets like he did the second quarter? You remember, the one he had to re-submit after Rep Ryan made him look like a mental midget.
  The Pass this Bill...Pass this Bill...Pass this Bill plan? You remember, the one that would slay the evil rich and create millions of jobs overnight.
  Stimulus 4? Why stop at a measley $800,000,000,000 and go for a real "crowd-pleaser"?
  Cap and Trade? You remember, the legislation he promised in 2008 that would necessarily cripple energy prices.
  
  What's it going to be? Why won't somebody with a microphone and a camera aks him? Why won't the press rake his economic skull through the hot bed of coals like they've done to Ryan, Cain, Gingrich, Paul, and on and on?

  More important questions for me would be "why are we still in Iraq?", "why are we still in Afghanistan?", "why did it take you so long to man up and state your position about protecting net neutrality?", "verify that you will veto SOPA please", etc.
• believer

  

  I Wear Pants;1011690 wrote:

  My original post said that in the past, the incumbent POTUS would worry about his re-election hopes if unemployment was above 5%. You, in turn, mention Bush's high unemployment rate. I remind you of Bush's unemployment rate at the time of his re-election bid (5.5%) and you show me a graph?
  
  I never said anything about the rate at the time he handed off the baton to the Appointed One (roughly 8%). I'll give the Bammer credit for consistency though. His unemployment rate has stayed relatively steady at 9% (+).
  
  If electoral history rings true this time around, BHO stands no chance of being re-elected.
• jmog

  I Wear Pants;1011170 wrote:Employment under Bush's first term when up a higher percentage than it has under Obama's first term and conservatives were okay with the "well it would have been worse if not for the tax cuts" argument back then what is now so different with the "it would have been worse without the stimulus" argument?

  If you are strictly talking unemployment rate then under Bush's first term it started at 4.3% and rose to a maximum of 6.3%.
  Obama took over at 7.8% and reached a maximum of 10.1%.
  
  Bush saw an increase after 9/11 of 2% after which the rate dropped back down to a low of 4.4% and stayed at or below 5% until mid 2008 during the economic crisis.
  
  Obama saw an increase of 2.3%, which is greater than 2%.
  
  I saw the play on words you did with "went up a higher percentage" but trust me, no one cares that technically going from say 4 to 6 is a higher change in percentage than say going from 8 to 11, going from 8 to 11 still hurts worse since it is a bigger magnitude change.
• I Wear Pants

  No, I didn't mean to play that game. I meant that if you look at the rate when they took office and the rate when the reelection was it was a bigger increase. (IE if Bush took office at 1% and then at reelection it was 3%, vs Obama taking office at 4% and reelection campaign at 5%. Clearly fabricated numbers but it's to illustrate the point).
  
  I wasn't playing games with the percentage. I meant it went up more.
• I Wear Pants

  
  
  
  
  Excellent job Fox.
• jmog

  I Wear Pants;1012605 wrote:No, I didn't mean to play that game. I meant that if you look at the rate when they took office and the rate when the reelection was it was a bigger increase. (IE if Bush took office at 1% and then at reelection it was 3%, vs Obama taking office at 4% and reelection campaign at 5%. Clearly fabricated numbers but it's to illustrate the point).
  
  I wasn't playing games with the percentage. I meant it went up more.

  How are you going to compare Obama's numbers from when "he went for re-election" when the general campaign hasn't started yet? You predicting numbers into the future?
  
  Even if you compare from when they took office to right now, December of 3 years in...they both went up about 1-1.2%.
• I Wear Pants

  jmog;1012903 wrote:How are you going to compare Obama's numbers from when "he went for re-election" when the general campaign hasn't started yet? You predicting numbers into the future?
  
  Even if you compare from when they took office to right now, December of 3 years in...they both went up about 1-1.2%.

  It's sort of obvious that's what I mean and that's my point. It's about the same and yet people were cool with the "it would have been worse if not for..." argument in 2004 why is it now not an acceptable argument?
  
  I think it's a bad argument for both times but it's just another thing that shows that some things are okay, but only when the letter next to the candidate is correct.
• queencitybuckeye

  BoatShoes;1011491 wrote:Your standard of proof is insurmountable. If Christ himself told you that the stimulus worked you would not believe. Your suggestion that we cannot know with very reasonable certainty things about the world, including economic policy, is nothing short of ridiculous.
  
  The simple fact is you don't care if it worked. You would be against it anyways.

  Your graphs prove the opposite of your intentions. If any sort of "stimulus" has any effect at all, it doesn't take effect immediately as you would want your graphs to have us believe.
• fish82

  

  I Wear Pants;1012760 wrote:
  
  
  
  Excellent job Fox.

  Jedi mind trick...aimed at the segment of you people too dumb to actually read the numbers on the graph.