American politics has truly hit a new low

[jackson33]

To preface my comments bascule, you are one of the best political posters I've noted on any forum over many years, even political forums. You have your convictions, are passionate about them and most important consistent. Rarely do you use foul language, are insulting or use tactics to evade unwelcome comments....

 

Now for the big "BUT"; In your above comments post #25, you admit not even having access to Fox News or Cable Channels (any), only watching them when your on the road, yet have formed your opinions on them, according to your political conviction, based on antidotal personal observation, telling me your accepting other political pundits interpretations of what's actually aired. Myself being in the opposite political ideology camp, find many Fox programs, boringly liberal with several news programs too liberal in content and see some as over the hill, too conservative, NO fair and balanced.

 

One example, that will draw some fire here, IS the Glen Beck Show. In my mind he represents the average person, with an ability to speak in an articulate manner that somehow got a platform to speak his views. As most "alcoholics" (self admitted) I feel he relies too much on religion (preaches too much), but has done more to bring the History of this Country back into national discourse than anybody in my lifetime, bar none. It's not always pretty, it's not always to my liking (dirty laundry) but so far IMO it has been, informative, accurate and he has displayed the problems of the past, that it would seem have been forgotten and being relived in many ways over the past 10 years or so.

 

While I would never recommend you listen to Hannity or a few other shows, but I would challenge to watch Beck or Shep Smith News shows (two per weekday) for at least two weeks, maybe two Sundays of Fox News Sunday or the Stossel's week-end show. Possibly I'm wrong but with my little knowledge of your background or reasons for your convictions, the viewpoints I do recognize are very common and those with like minded understanding (to you) watch some of these shows.

 

I would say of say 40 different shows on Fox, both News or Financial, probably 20 of them opposed Bush's policy either then or now, almost to the same degree as they seem to oppose the current administration and up to ten are A political (to both major parties) and 5 lean liberal.

[bascule]

Now for the big "BUT"; In your above comments post #25, you admit not even having access to Fox News or Cable Channels (any), only watching them when your on the road, yet have formed your opinions on them, according to your political conviction, based on antidotal personal observation

 

[...]

 

One example, that will draw some fire here, IS the Glen Beck Show. In my mind he represents the average person

 

I don't watch Fox with regularity, but I believe I've seen enough to have observed a representative sample. Beck's program is the worst on Fox. If he is everyman, then everyman is fill with fear, paranoia, and conspiracy theories. Beck is little different from Alex Jones, except with an audience an order of magnitude larger. And that's not even to mention that he shills for Goldline. Compared to Beck, personalities like O'Reilly and Hannity are practically respectable.

 

But if there's something you think I've missed on Fox by not watching it regularly, please let me know.

[bascule]

Ok, how about the Huffington Post, which just got a million-dollar donation to its investigative arm from George Soros?

 

How about National Public Radio, which just got a $1.8 million donation from George Soros (on the same day that it fired Juan Williams)?

 

Can we compare them with Fox News Channel?

 

No. I think the key difference you're missing here is that Fox/News Corp is the one doing the donating to the Republican party, not the other way around.

[jackson33]

It may be wrong, but if I owned a Company, the PRESIDENT of US and staff members continuously try to undermine or members of that party that will NOT participate in dialog, I just might contribute to their loyal opposition, but then that's just me....but;

 

MSNBC Parent Company Has Given Democrats $1.1 Million in 2010 Cycle.

Do I even have to tell you where this is going? Set aside the fact that MSNBC's "parent company" is GE, which happens to be one of the largest, most diverse companies in the world (not to mention a major defense contractor), which means it's likely to spend more money lobbying politicians that a straight media company like Murdoch's News Corp. [/Quote]

 

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008200031

 

Now here is the REAL problem;

 

Also, there’s no word whether or not NewsCorp will donate to Democratic interests. But they have in the past…

 

Until now, the News Corp./Fox political action committee had given 54 percent of its donations to Democrats and 46 percent to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics — including $8,000 to Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid’s campaign committee and $5,000 to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s organization. News Corp. also gave $45,000 each to GOP and Democratic campaign committees on Capitol Hill.[/Quote]

 

http://donklephant.com/2010/08/18/newscorp-donates-1m-to-republican-governors-association/

[bascule]

It may be wrong, but if I owned a Company, the PRESIDENT of US and staff members continuously try to undermine or members of that party that will NOT participate in dialog, I just might contribute to their loyal opposition, but then that's just me....but;

 

GE gave $1.1 million to Democrats and $731,000 to Republicans. News Corp gave $1 million to Republicans and $0 to Democrats.

 

What's your point?

Edited October 26, 2010 by bascule

[Pangloss]

Ok, how about the Huffington Post, which just got a million-dollar donation to its investigative arm from George Soros?

 

How about National Public Radio, which just got a $1.8 million donation from George Soros (on the same day that it fired Juan Williams)?

 

Can we compare them with Fox News Channel?

No. I think the key difference you're missing here is that Fox/News Corp is the one doing the donating to the Republican party, not the other way around.

 

I see it as two sides of the same coin. I think you would have a big problem with Rupert Murdoch giving $1.8 million to NPR on the condition that they fire Nina Totenburg and hire 50 reporters in each media area of the country.

 

And I don't recall you complaining about GE/NBC's $3.3 million in donations to national Democrats. I only see you complaining about $1 million News Corp/Fox gave to Republicans. Why is that?

 

(Edit: Obviously we cross-posted.)

[bascule]

Those numbers correlate with MSNBC being liberal biased and Fox being an appendage of the Republican party

[jryan]

Top 20 PACS and who they support

 

 

527 spending by election cylce

 

 

I think the point is that when the talk comes 'round to soft money campaign financing the Democrats shouldn't be throwing stones.

[Pangloss]

Those numbers correlate with MSNBC being liberal biased and Fox being an appendage of the Republican party

 

Well as we're so fond of saying around here, correlation does not prove causation. But fair enough, that's what the numbers suggest.

 

This is why I've said many times here that the danger of Fox News Channel is not their conservative bias, it's the fact that they're doing to media what partisan politicians have been doing to the political process for decades -- each subsequent participant raising the bar and one-upping each other. Rachel Maddow and Andersen Cooper wouldn't even be on the air if it wasn't for Fox News Channel. And Glenn Beck wouldn't be on the air if it wasn't for them.

 

I wonder how much money media mogul Oprah Winfrey and her companies gave to political parties and candidates last year, and I wonder if they were Democrats or Republicans. No, scratch that, I don't really wonder at all.

[bascule]

This is why I've said many times here that the danger of Fox News Channel is not their conservative bias, it's the fact that they're doing to media what partisan politicians have been doing to the political process for decades -- each subsequent participant raising the bar and one-upping each other. Rachel Maddow and Andersen Cooper wouldn't even be on the air if it wasn't for Fox News Channel.

 

Let me know when CNN gives Alan Grayson his own TV show like Fox gave Huckabee one, not to mention Sarah Palin.

 

Perhaps the larger issue here... does anyone care about the lies Fox is spreading? Things like Obama has raised/is going to raise taxes [not true], Obama has increased the deficit [not true], the stimulus didn't work [not true], healthcare reform increased the deficit [not true]. The reality of the situation is that Obama and the Democrats have done a great job taming a great deal of out of control spending that was occurring under Bush and the Republicans and have overall come up with good plans for paying for their new proposed spending without increasing taxes beyond simply letting Bush's tax cuts lapse.

 

Yet Fox, Republicans, and conservative PACs are out in force, scaring people about the national debt and scaring people about taxes. They're deliberately manipulating their base to get people to vote them back into power, when in fact the Democrats are actually doing a fairly decent job of addressing these problems and getting the economy back on track. The Republicans have not changed their tune and there is absolutely no reason to assume that if elected back into power we won't see a repeat attempt to reenact the exact same failed policies. If anything the political logjam will thicken, nothing will get done, and our nation's problems won't be addressed.

 

Unfortunately there's no good solutions here. The Republicans are set to take the majority in the house and pick up at least 50 seats, and I expect for the next two years not a lot is going to get done. Perhaps, if anything, people will finally realize the Republicans are the cause of the problems with the economy and debt, but even that's unlikely.

Edited October 27, 2010 by bascule

[Pangloss]

I don't believe that the people have turned against President Obama because they were frightened by Fox News, I think they've turned against him for the usual reason -- because he has taken or supported too many positions that were not shared by the majority. You can't do that and expect to maintain high poll numbers.

 

Just to expand on my last post a bit, I think it's also generally the case that when the president fails to reflect the will of the majority, he does that in a manner that seems to reveal an overall ideological bent that's also not reflective of the will of the American people.

 

Here's President Obama's chart at OnTheIssues.org, where they label him a "hard-core liberal", with tons of supporting evidence (they're just as direct about Republicans, too).

 

 

That's not representative of this country. How do I know this?

 

Here's a Gallup poll from 2009 saying that twice as many Americans identify as conservative versus liberal.

 

 

And that's not exactly a new trend, either:

 

 

The math here is pretty clear. It's a conservative country, and Obama is not fooling anyone (anymore) that he's moderate.

[bascule]

Conservatives (particularly of the Tea Party variety) want more fiscal responsibility in Washington, lower taxes, and a lower deficit. Obama and the Democrats have delivered in all of these areas: taxes are the lowest they've been in decades (indeed a compromise with Republicans, where Republicans flat out refuse to compromise with Democrats), they've managed to substantially reduce the deficit from where it was left by the Bush administration, and the stimulus is creating jobs. By all quantitative measures Obama and the Democrats are addressing the problems conservatives are concerned about.

 

However, thanks to Fox and a disinformation campaign by Republicans, conservatives think taxes have gone up, spending is out of control, and the actions of the Democrats have cost us jobs. Because of that they want to vote the Republicans back into power when the Republicans were primarily responsible for the increased spending and lost jobs.

 

This disconnect between reality and image was architected by Republicans who are set to gain upwards of 50 seats in the House and thus control of it. This is madness. This isn't about Obama being too liberal. This is about a deliberate distortion of reality on the part of Republicans and Fox. They're spreading lies, and lies are getting people elected.

Edited October 27, 2010 by bascule

[Pangloss]

This disconnect between reality and image was architected by Republicans who are set to gain upwards of 50 seats in the House and thus control of it. This is madness. This isn't about Obama being too liberal. This is about a deliberate distortion of reality on the part of Republicans and Fox. They're spreading lies, and lies are getting people elected.

 

You're declaring catastrophe over a turnover of less than 12%. All I can say to that is that Democrats and Republicans alike may want to fasten their safety belts. I predict that to the American people in future elections, 11.5% is going to be little more than "a good start".

[bascule]

You're declaring catastrophe

 

I'm not declaring "catastrophe", only stating how ridiculous it is that misinformed (or should I say lied-to) voters are putting the people who caused the problems back in power...

 

over a turnover of less than 12%

 

...which is otherwise stated as Republicans taking control of the House by lying their way back into office.

 

By the standards conservatives purport to have, the Democrats are doing a better job than the Republicans, yet Fox and the Republicans have convinced people that the Democrats are doing a lousier job than the Republicans were, when in fact the opposite is true. Taxes are low, the deficit is down, and jobs are back up.

Edited October 27, 2010 by bascule

[jryan]

Conservatives (particularly of the Tea Party variety) want more fiscal responsibility in Washington, lower taxes, and a lower deficit. Obama and the Democrats have delivered in all of these areas: taxes are the lowest they've been in decades (indeed a compromise with Republicans, where Republicans flat out refuse to compromise with Democrats), they've managed to substantially reduce the deficit from where it was left by the Bush administration, and the stimulus is creating jobs. By all quantitative measures Obama and the Democrats are addressing the problems conservatives are concerned about.

 

 

The Federal budget has gone from $3.1 trillion in 2009 (the "Bush Budget") to $3.55 trillion in 2010.

 

 

The "Bush Deficit" in 2009 is not really a fair assessment when you are discussing 2009 -vs- 2010 since $159 billion of the 2009 deficit was stimulus spending voted into law during the Obama administration. So, the "Bush" portion of the 2009 deficit ($1.4 trillion) is about $1.24 trillion, which is not good by a long shot, but still less than Obama and the Democrats managed on their own in 2010.

 

Therefor it is disingenuous to claim a "Bush Deficit" in 2009 when there was so much emergency spending signed into law and spent AFTER Bush left office. I'm not happy with the $1.24 trillion either, but I have to shake my head at the categorization that Obama lowered the deficit. If he did it would only be insofar as he reduced his own spending from 2009.

Edited October 27, 2010 by jryan

[bascule]

The "Bush Deficit" in 2009 is not really a fair assessment when you are discussing 2009 -vs- 2010 since $159 billion of the 2009 deficit was stimulus spending voted into law during the Obama administration. So, the "Bush" portion of the 2009 deficit ($1.4 trillion) is about $1.24 trillion

 

Wrong. FY2009 was Bush's last budget, and it was $1.4 trillion regardless of any stimulus spending. If you really believe what you're saying, please dig up for me this mysterious $1.24 trillion budget that you claim Bush passed for FY2009, but even the hippie dippie patchouli-wearing peacenik communists at the CATO institute will tell you that you're wrong.

Edited October 27, 2010 by bascule

[jryan]

Wrong. FY2009 was Bush's last budget, and it was $1.4 trillion regardless of any stimulus spending. If you really believe what you're saying, please dig up for me this mysterious $1.24 trillion budget that you claim Bush passed for FY2009, but even the hippie dippie patchouli-wearing peacenik communists at the CATO institute will tell you that you're wrong.

 

 

I'm not sure how it is that you see that as evidence since the CATO institute doesn't actually break out the stimulus money spent in 2009 or 2010 in it's article.

 

But we can argue it that way too and show that the claim is disingenuous for the same reason, but in a different direction.

 

According to the White House's own stimulus tracker, $558 billion has been spent of the $787 billion stimulus. I have already shown that the stimulus payouts in 2009 accounted for $159 billion of that, which leaves $399 billion spent in 2010. I will also grant that the $558 billion is 15 days into FY2011, so lets discount $40 billion for 2011... which is more than was likely spent. If you want to argue that that spending was off the books when comparing deficits (something Obama promised he wouldn't do) then the ACTUAL deficits for 2009 and 2010 SHOULD look like this:

 

2009: $1.4 trillion + $0.159 trillion = $1.559 trillion total deficit outlays

 

2010: $1.3 trillion + $0.399 trilion - $0.04 trillion = $1.659 trillion in total deficit outlays.

 

So whether you count the stimulus on the books or off it still shows that the claim that Obama cut the deficit between 2009 and 2010 is not actually true. He increased spending in 2010 by roughly $100 billion dollars.

Edited October 27, 2010 by jryan

[Mr Skeptic]

You do realize that assigning the money, not spending it as assigned, is what messes with the budget? The money will be spent as it was assigned to be spent, and those who assigned it are the ones responsible for the spending.

[bascule]

So whether you count the stimulus on the books or off it still shows that the claim that Obama cut the deficit between 2009 and 2010 is not actually true.

 

That's just patently false:

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69E54M20101016

 

and in fact:

 

The government called the deficit-to-GDP improvement the biggest since fiscal 1987

 

Not only did the deficit decrease, it decreased substantially.

Edited October 27, 2010 by bascule

[Pangloss]

"Lie" is such a strong word, isn't it?

 

Perhaps the larger issue here... does anyone care about the lies Fox is spreading? Things like Obama has raised/is going to raise taxes [not true],

 

A change in withholding is not a tax cut. Also, none of this speaks to the future ("is going").

 

 

Obama has increased the deficit [not true],

 

2009 budget (Bush's last, as you point out) had an estimated deficit of $407 billion. (source)

2010 budget (Obama's first) now has a deficit that has been reduced to $1.28 trillion (your source)

 

That having been said, further down the page it says that the 2009 deficit increased after full tax receipts were tallied, and that raised the estimated deficit to $1.4 trillion, which would be more than $1.28 trillion.

 

I guess it's a good thing we didn't do another stimulus like the President wanted, eh?

 

See that's the thing -- you focus on four or five things, but people are looking at a bigger picture. The president can't have it both ways -- either he wanted to absolutely blow the deficit out of the water in order to save the economy and deal with the deficit/debt later, or he was fighting to keep costs to a minimum. I don't think he's fooling anyone by bragging about some accounting error and AIG paybacks that brought the actual deficit in slightly under the projected one.

 

It's not about "lie". It's about trends, desires, and ideologies. It's about the direction that the public thinks the president wants to take this country. That's not the direction they want to go.

 

 

the stimulus didn't work [not true],

 

That's one interpretation of whether the stimulus "worked". But even if we accept that interpretation, it's not what the President promised that it would do. Whether it's right to hold a president to something as vague and difficult to define as the US economy is an interesting and certainly debatable question. Interestingly, the entire American public will actively participate in that one, and we'll know the result of that debate on Tuesday night.

 

 

healthcare reform increased the deficit [not true].

 

I stopped reading your link at the headline: "Healthcare bill to cut deficit: CBO". Your word "increased" is past tense. Does your article state that the budget has not been increased due to health care reform, past tense?

[bascule]

A change in withholding is not a tax cut. Also, none of this speaks to the future ("is going").

 

Are you suggesting I'm claiming Obama passed a tax cut when my claim is really that he hasn't raised taxes? A lot of misinformed Republicans claim Obama raised taxes. He hasn't. But yes, per a compromise with Republicans taxes are now the lowest they've been in decades.

 

2009 budget (Bush's last, as you point out) had an estimated deficit of $407 billion. (source)

 

And an actual deficit of over $1.4 trillion. It seems the estimates of tax revenue under Bush were a bit off... and this is an extremely important point. Increasing tax revenue is essential to fighting the deficit. It would seem you are completely ignorant of this fact so let me detail it for you.

 

2010 budget (Obama's first) now has a deficit that has been reduced to $1.28 trillion (your source)

 

That having been said, further down the page it says that the 2009 deficit increased after full tax receipts were tallied, and that raised the estimated deficit to $1.4 trillion, which would be more than $1.28 trillion.

 

I guess it's a good thing we didn't do another stimulus like the President wanted, eh?

 

Yet there was more stimulus spending in 2010 than there was in 2009! How can this be? Clearly stimulus = deficit, right?

 

Wrong. Stimulating the economy increases tax revenue and in turn lowers the deficit despite increased spending, all without raising taxes! Amazing!

 

I really don't want to patronize conservatives here, but in general I think they have difficulty grasping that the economy is a nonlinear complex dynamical system. Stimulus doesn't translate directly to defecit. There is a feedback loop between what the government does to revive an ailing economy and how much is collected in tax revenue, and increased tax revenue lowers the deficit.

 

The stimulus worked (yes, the stimulus worked) and per the opinions of many econonomists more stimulus would result in an increased benefit.

 

So no, I have to strongly disagree with your assertion that "it's a good thing we didn't do another stimulus". It's a bad thing we didn't do another stimulus. According to many expert opinions had the stimulus gone further it would've further increased tax revenue and further decreased the debt.

 

See that's the thing -- you focus on four or five things, but people are looking at a bigger picture.

 

No, you're focusing on tiny details and missing the bigger picture. Sure, the stimulus is spending, but per the aphorism you have to spend money to make money. Spending money to jumpstart the economy increased tax revenue and decreases the deficit. Obama has increased spending and decreased the deficit. You are completely missing the bigger picture here.

 

The president can't have it both ways -- either he wanted to absolutely blow the deficit out of the water in order to save the economy and deal with the deficit/debt later

 

No, again you're wrong. The President has focused on fixing the economy, and as a side effect, tax revenue increased and the deficit fell despite increased spending

 

It's not about "lie". It's about trends, desires, and ideologies. It's about the direction that the public thinks the president wants to take this country. That's not the direction they want to go.

 

Seriously, what is Obama doing wrong by conservative standards. Spending more? That is the only valid complaint from a conservative perspective. Taxes are down. The deficit is down. The economy is doing better. Sure, Obama is spending more, but that spending has directly translated into an improved economy and a lower deficit.

 

I don't know how else to fight the completely myopic "SPENDING BAD" idea which seems to permeate conservative culture except by example. Is the Interstate Highway System bad? Government spending created it. If you hold a universal view that all government spending is bad, then you are in turn a hater of the Interstate Highway system. Or perhaps something that hits home more with conservatives, national defense. Is spending money to defend our country bad? No? See? SOME SPENDING IS ACTUALLY GOOD. It's all about context.

 

Honestly, can you actually name one specific thing Obama has done that even in the eyes of conservatives would make him a bad president? The two things that come to mind for me are: he increased spending (in the context of jumpstarting the economy) and he increased healthcare coverage (in a manner that will eventually save this country money!). Given that, any conservative who is actually paying attention should like Obama.

 

Pangloss, I don't think you're paying enough attention, which is pretty sad for the moderator of the politics forum and perhaps a sign I'm wasting my time here and should stop posting permanently.

[Pangloss]

Are you suggesting I'm claiming Obama passed a tax cut when my claim is really that he hasn't raised taxes?

 

I could have been more clear. Your source doesn't say that Obama didn't or won't raise taxes. It says that he cut withholding.

 

 

Increasing tax revenue is essential to fighting the deficit.

 

It certainly is important -- IF we assume that all expenses in the budget are appropriate and necessary. This country is about to make a statement as to whether or not it thinks that $2.381 trillion is enough money to run a country.

 

 

Stimulating the economy increases tax revenue and in turn lowers the deficit despite increased spending, all without raising taxes! Amazing!

 

So amazing that most Americans think it's too good to be true.

 

Revenue in 2008 was $2.7 trillion. The projected 2.381 of 2010 is more than the 2.1 of 2009, but it's still less than 2.7. (source) That's not an increase, and when Obama says things like that people think he's a snake oil salesman trying to sell a new spending normal. They don't want a higher spending normal -- they want to "Restore Sanity".

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying it's a very convoluted solution to what's actually a very simple (just politically impossible) problem -- cutting, rather than increasing, spending. It doesn't matter that the people themselves are the main obstacle to cutting that spending. Republicans increased spending? They're gone. Democrats increased spending? They're gone. Next? Oh, you're going to increase spending too? Fine, you're gone. Next?

 

 

 

I really don't want to patronize conservatives here, but in general I think they have difficulty grasping that the economy is a nonlinear complex dynamical system. Stimulus doesn't translate directly to defecit.

 

So goes one of the two main theories.

 

I wasn't patronized (though I at least know how to spell "deficit"), but I don't think you're talking about liberals and conservatives. I think you're talking about two opposing groups of economic theory with equal academic bona fides. Liberals have just as hard a time accepting market economics as conservatives have accepting neo-Keynesian economics. Doesn't mean they're stupid.

 

 

So no, I have to strongly disagree with your assertion that "it's a good thing we didn't do another stimulus". It's a bad thing we didn't do another stimulus. According to many expert opinions had the stimulus gone further it would've further increased tax revenue and further decreased the debt.

 

Economically you may even be right, but it's a problem for your current position. If they had had another massive stimulus then you wouldn't have been able to make the point that the deficit was less than the previous year.

 

It's your point, not mine. Which is it? The deficit's getting better, or we should have made it much, much larger and (now) should not worry about it?

 

 

The President has focused on fixing the economy, and as a side effect, tax revenue increased and the deficit fell despite increased spending

 

It does need to be more clearly explained to the people that most of the deficit comes from budgetary spending and not the one-time stimulus and bailout deals that were directly tagged onto the deficit. There's a perception that those expenditures were added to the spending side of the budget and somehow continued in 2010 as a new spending norm. Given that expenditures went from $3.107 trillion to $3.552 trillion it's not hard to see why they are confused. And I'm sure Fox News commentators happily muddy those waters further.

 

But in the end the problem is the same. We're going to collect $2.381 trillion, and we're going to spend $3.552 trillion. THIS math is VERY simple. And Democrats are responsible for that math. And they defend it as if it makes sense. Main Street can't do math like that -- not because they're stupid, but because when they try they get their houses and cars taken away.

 

And you want them to understand that it's okay that the government is doing this because of some complex arithmetic that involves a deep and long-term trust of government. They're just not going to do that, bascule. They have a much simpler way to address the problem -- they're going to go to the poll on Tuesday and scream the word "NO!" at the top of their lungs, and they're going to KEEP screaming that word until Washington hears it.

 

Is that how things should be? Probably not, but lacking sane leadership that's how it is. It's not about Republicans or Fox News Channel. It's about leadership. We don't have it.

 

 

Seriously, what is Obama doing wrong by conservative standards.

 

I gave my opinion on that earlier but you didn't want to talk about it. He's failing to respond to the will of the people. He's staked out an ideologically progressive position, and when challenged on it he's thrown up a brick wall and lobbed grenades at the other extreme. And mainstream Americans (who don't generally even come close to that ideology) aren't buying it.

 

But that's just what I think is happening. That doesn't mean I think it's very fair, or that it's a good thing for the country. My opinion in general is that unguided (or poorly guided) mob mentality is generally a bad thing.

 

 

Taxes are down. The deficit is down. The economy is doing better. Sure, Obama is spending more, but that spending has directly translated into an improved economy and a lower deficit.

 

I agree that the deficit thing is a valid point that hasn't been fully realized (or even noticed) by most conservatives. It's something to hang a sign on over the next two years, especially if you can keep the deficit on a decreasing footing and the health care bill doesn't blast everyone's wallets into submission like it shows every sign of doing at the moment (there's unbelievable outcry right over pending rate increases -- holy cow -- but that's another subject).

 

So throw it around -- that's the president's best line in the runup to 2012. If the economy and people's overall state improves by then, he has a chance. Otherwise I guess we'll have to move the West Wing REALLY far west. You know, so she can see Russia from her desk.

 

He's pretty much lost my vote at the moment, but he can earn it back again by returning to the center (or if Palin runs, that'd pretty much do the trick). If he does come back to the center and Republicans don't meet him halfway, I'll recognize that and advocate the return of Democrats to power in 2012. And I think the people will be right behind me.

 

 

Pangloss, I don't think you're paying enough attention, which is pretty sad for the moderator of the politics forum and perhaps a sign I'm wasting my time here and should stop posting permanently.

 

So I should stop posting my opinions because you might leave? Come now, don't pull a Whoopie on me, dude. ;-)

[Mr Skeptic]

Am I the only one disgusted that the yearly deficit is being referred to as "the deficit"? The only direction that is going is up up up, right?

[Pangloss]

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying there, sorry. Can you elaborate? (bascule was just pointing out that the deficit amount actually went down from 2009 to 2010, but I'm wondering if you are referring to something else.)

[jryan]

That's just patently false:

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69E54M20101016

 

and in fact:

 

 

 

Not only did the deficit decrease, it decreased substantially.

 

 

Where is it mentioned in that article how the stimulus is counted in the 2009 and 2010 deficits? YOU argued that the stimulus spending that Obama and the Democrats voted in and spent in 2009 was not part of the $1.4 trillion deficit calculation in 2009, so my subtracting the $159 billion from that total was incorrect.... so I simply took your word as gospel and ADDED the stimulus spending from 2009 and 2010 to the deficits of 2009 and 2010. Either way the narrative that Obama spent less is false.

 

It was a campaign promise of Obama's to not keep any debts off-books... but you are now arguing that the stimulus is not in the 2009 or 2010 figure and shouldn't be counted. Why is that?

 

 

The way I see it is that either the deficit numbers include the stimulus, in which case you can't count $0.159 trillion of 2009 as "Bush Debt" (leaving a Bush total of $1.257 trillion), or the stimulus is not counted in those deficits, and tacking then onto the deficit totals results in: 2009-$1.41 Trillion Bush, $0.159 Trillion Obama, 2010 - $1.649 trillion total Obama deficit.

 

At best I see that the Reuters article has the Democrats arguing that the stimulus was necessary, but I don't see where it argues that it shouldn't be counted on the books... whether you assume it is counted or not it still makes Bush's portion of the 2009 budget less than the Obama budget of 2010.

Edited October 28, 2010 by jryan