Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
squishyx

Romney on the 47%

128 posts in this topic

Those charts tell me that the American people need to be a little more patient, regardless of which party controls the government, when you look at just how bad the recession was.

What exactly would a McCain presidency have done to those numbers? His proposals were basically the same as Bush and Romney and those policies in place before the recession. I am not blaming those policies, I am saying if those that were in place couldn't prevent the fallout, what makes anyone thing they would have helped the problem? If anything it proves that recovering from a recession is hard, but most people know that.

Hopefully we wouldn't have had a permanent 800 billion dollar increase to the budget that doesn't help the recovery and provides a brake to future growth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully we wouldn't have had a permanent 800 billion dollar increase to the budget that doesn't help the recovery and provides a brake to future growth.

And this 800 billion dollar permanent increase is what exactly? Tarp? which was paid back and wasn't even Obama's legacy, Stimulus? which was half tax cuts, basically the solution all republicans have proposed, Obamacare? which the CBA rated as essentially revenue neutral?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does everyone think of the 60 minutes interviews? I was upset with the lack of follow up questions to both Romney and Obama.

What really irks me about Obama is the job creation. People hear the 4.5M and think "wow what a great job" and fail to go out and research and fact check things. It's really only about 300k. Huge difference. I would respect him more if he told the truth about it. More annoying is why hasn't anyone questioned him about it?

http://www.cnn.com/2...jobs/index.html

I would link it but it's not going through with the new update.

Well the 4.5M is not "fake." It's just a carefully selected time period to present the most favorable sounding statistic possible. It's not as if they took scattered good months from the past 4 years and said "In months where the economy added jobs, we created 6M private sector jobs!" I agree that saying, "Since Jan 2010. . ." beforehand is going to mislead some people in that they'll forget that starting date by the time they hear "4.5M." I don't feel a big need to question Obama on it though because the answers are so predictable.

Reporter: "You say that the economy under your leadership has added jobs, right?"

President: "Yes. Since we turned the economy around in January 2010, [etc]"

Reporter: "But over the course of your entire presidency, the economy has only added 300k private sector jobs."

President: "Well that may be, but I took over in the middle of a terrible recession, the worst one in decades. Once my policies took hold (in Jan 2010 of course) we began to steadily add jobs."

Does any of that sound interesting? If you dig hard enough on that, then I guess you might eventually get to some point where Obama either admits that his results haven't been so good or says something that sounds out of touch about how good things are economically. But unless the he were to really slip up, I don't see much damage being done there. Most people (based their friends' and their own financial situations) have their opinions about the economy and whether it's bad or good enough, and one stat being touted by president won't change that.

Edit: Stressing the 300k overall part might actually help Obama, because he'll counter with 4.5M since 2010, and then it sounds like the jobs momentum is very positive, which probably matters more to voters than the overall total's mediocrity.

Edited by Devils Dose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this 800 billion dollar permanent increase is what exactly? Tarp? which was paid back and wasn't even Obama's legacy, Stimulus? which was half tax cuts, basically the solution all republicans have proposed, Obamacare? which the CBA rated as essentially revenue neutral?

In 2008 the US gov't spent ~2.9 trillion dollars. In 2009 the US gov't spent ~3.5 trillion dollars, much of it in supposedly temporary stimulus money.

So 2010 should see a decrease in what the gov't spent, since so much temporary spending was finished, instead was see ~3.5 trillion spent again. 2011 sees ~3.6 trillion in spending and 2012 is estimated to be about 3.8 trillion in spending.

Those have nothing to do with tax cuts, those are pure spending increase. In 5 years the spending outlays by the US gov't will have increase from ~2.7 trillion to ~3.8 trillion, much of it done in the name of getting the economy going, which the spending has failed to do. That's about a 41% increase in outlays while the US GDP was barely growing, to me that's unacceptable and irresponsible behavior.

This spending also increased out debt, which hurts future economic growth.

Edited by Devils731
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

much of it done in the name of getting the economy going, which the spending has failed to do.

This spending also increased out debt, which hurts future economic growth.

Except, what if that spending really has been a big help to the economy. Isn't that a scary thought? I'm not saying it has, but does anyone have the macroeconomic chops to know?

As for the future growth, it's difficult to convince voters to make sacrifices for the sake of the future. It's a pitfall of democracy. Environmentalists have had some success doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 2008 the US gov't spent ~2.9 trillion dollars. In 2009 the US gov't spent ~3.5 trillion dollars, much of it in supposedly temporary stimulus money.

So 2010 should see a decrease in what the gov't spent, since so much temporary spending was finished, instead was see ~3.5 trillion spent again. 2011 sees ~3.6 trillion in spending and 2012 is estimated to be about 3.8 trillion in spending.

Those have nothing to do with tax cuts, those are pure spending increase. In 5 years the spending outlays by the US gov't will have increase from ~2.7 trillion to ~3.8 trillion, much of it done in the name of getting the economy going, which the spending has failed to do. That's about a 41% increase in outlays while the US GDP was barely growing, to me that's unacceptable and irresponsible behavior.

This spending also increased out debt, which hurts future economic growth.

http://2.bp.blogspot.../Spending 1.png

From this chart you can visually pick out the stimulus that lasted several years. After that we kind of level off, you are asking why there is no drop but that ignores historically that we spend more over time with inflation. The current level's of spending fit the projected and then see that natural rise in spending is basically on par with the rate it was growing at before. I would say we are only about 100-200billion higher then what we would have under a consistent linear projection, this small (but higher then otherwise expected) rise there can probably be attributed to the rise in unemployment insurance or other recession side effects that were not plaguing annual national spending between 2002 and 2008.

This might help clear up what I am trying to say, forgive the crude paintbrush skills...

http://s15.postimage...h7/spending.png

Red would roughly translate to stimulus spending, the Green is basically an additional increase (to the ever increasing) mandatory spending, the result of the recession. To me this is only about 100b, but if I had the actual data it might translate to a little more (or less) which is why I gave myself an up to 200b buffer.

Edited by squishyx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://2.bp.blogspot.../Spending 1.png

From this chart you can visually pick out the stimulus that lasted several years. After that we kind of level off, you are asking why there is no drop but that ignores historically that we spend more over time with inflation. The current level's of spending fit the projected and then see that natural rise in spending is basically on par with the rate it was growing at before. I would say we are only about 100-200billion higher then what we would have under a consistent linear projection, this small (but higher then otherwise expected) rise there can probably be attributed to the rise in unemployment insurance or other recession side effects that were not plaguing annual national spending between 2002 and 2008.

I would say that you're ignoring that inflation has been pretty low the last few years. So growth due to inflation should not account for me.

It doesn't matter if today's spending is only a little more than we might expect given normal growth because we've been at "todays" spending for 3 or 4 years, so creating debt for spending ahead of normal growth for multiple years. That also doesn't account for the fact that economic growth has been very low during those 3 or 4 years, so cutting back on spending growth would have made sense.

It boggles my mind that most people were in agreement that we were creating too large a yearly deficit under Bush, one of the things I always cited when people would ask if I had any problems with Bush, but now don't seem bothered by deficits that are 3 to 4 times as large.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that you're ignoring that inflation has been pretty low the last few years. So growth due to inflation should not account for me.

It doesn't matter if today's spending is only a little more than we might expect given normal growth because we've been at "todays" spending for 3 or 4 years, so creating debt for spending ahead of normal growth for multiple years. That also doesn't account for the fact that economic growth has been very low during those 3 or 4 years, so cutting back on spending growth would have made sense.

It boggles my mind that most people were in agreement that we were creating too large a yearly deficit under Bush, one of the things I always cited when people would ask if I had any problems with Bush, but now don't seem bothered by deficits that are 3 to 4 times as large.

I would very much like to cut the deficit, I am in favor of cutting spending, but if the argument doesn't include tax increases (and hell raise them on everyone, they are all at record low levels) then it's a non starter. You can't get from point A to B on either alone, and anyone who pretends that you can isn't being honest about the true side effects and damage that would be caused by perusing such changes.

When it comes to fiscal output neither candidate really impresses me (and one reason why I'm not really sold on re-voting for Obama), but I consider it a wash between them. The guy who pretends you can just cut taxes and grow your way out of a problem is just as bad as the one who wants to tax a little and spend a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except, what if that spending really has been a big help to the economy. Isn't that a scary thought? I'm not saying it has, but does anyone have the macroeconomic chops to know?

Nobody will ever know for sure, we do know that the projected economic future with the stimulus didn't meet it's projected goals. In fact, it did so poorly, that the situation ended up worse than CBO estimated it would had we done nothing at all.

I would say the common assumption is that gov't spending has a multiplier less than 1 when it is deficit spending, and since this was all deficit spending then it's not a surprise that long term it will hurt more than help. It didn't appear to help enough in the short term, so we took a long term hit for a lame short term bonus.

We know there was some incompetent spending with the stimulus money, money that stimulated almost nothing, and it's hard to know exactly how much it helped short term, but when someone misjudges something so horribly, it's hard for me to accept them saying, "well, we didn't know this would happen, but we promise, it was still a good thing".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.weeklysta...ads_652973.html

Just another of millions of examples.

Beating you down is hardly grasping at straws. You're funny.

On Romney Windows:

Ashley Parker, a New York Times reporter who filed on the comments, tells New York magazine that "it was clear from the context that he was not being serious."

Damn liberal press! always attacking republicans... waiit....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Romney Windows:

Damn liberal press! always attacking republicans... waiit....

So they originally report something wrong, which seems obviously wrong, and then later correct themselves and that's points in their favor? It's better to correct than to never correct, but best yet would be not to jump to the wrong report in the first place.

I think that's part of the point, when Romney's 47% tape came out the news had no problem airing it, despite the tape having a gap in it. Then when the Obama redistribution tape came out, NBC News would not air it, even after it was confirmed to be Obama on the tape, because they wanted to ensure there were no edits in it. That seems to be a bit of a double standard, air one tape that isn't full and then wait to air another tape so that you can find a fuller version to air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they originally report something wrong, which seems obviously wrong, and then later correct themselves and that's points in their favor? It's better to correct than to never correct, but best yet would be not to jump to the wrong report in the first place.

I think that's part of the point, when Romney's 47% tape came out the news had no problem airing it, despite the tape having a gap in it. Then when the Obama redistribution tape came out, NBC News would not air it, even after it was confirmed to be Obama on the tape, because they wanted to ensure there were no edits in it. That seems to be a bit of a double standard, air one tape that isn't full and then wait to air another tape so that you can find a fuller version to air.

Obama's redistribution tape is also from 1998. A full decade before he ran for President and 14 years ago now. This is why it wasn't played.

Had the redistribution tape been recent, I would bet on it having been played. Romney's 47% tape is from May, during the campaign. I think there's a big difference in respect to relevance here.

They're not playing Romney's pro-choice and pro-gay stances ad-hoc from his senate run in 1994 or his pro-gay rights stances as Massachusetts governor even though he's "changed" and flipped the script entirely to get the social conservatives on his side.

I also don't see whats so shocking about the redistribution comment. He's a Democrat lol. Romney got recorded putting a large amount of people on blast. The 14 year old Obama tape probably has been known about by those who first played it (Fox lol) for months and they played it when they did because of the Romney kerfuffle and they didnt play it prior because they knew it was nothing. Oh no, it just coincidentally appeared the day after that lol.

Edited by ghdi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama's redistribution tape is also from 1998. A full decade before he ran for President and 14 years ago now. This is why it wasn't played.

They did play the tape, they just waited to get the full version, even though the Obama campaigned had already confirmed it was authentic. NBC News had an Obama campaign member on to defend the comment and then later they played the fuller version along with the explanation of why the comment wasn't bad.

I don't care if the comment was bad or not, I don't feel like it revealed anything new about Obama, he's always wanted more redistribution, it was how the tapes were treated differently that I'm talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They did play the tape, they just waited to get the full version, even though the Obama campaigned had already confirmed it was authentic. NBC News had an Obama campaign member on to defend the comment and then later they played the fuller version along with the explanation of why the comment wasn't bad.

I don't care if the comment was bad or not, I don't feel like it revealed anything new about Obama, he's always wanted more redistribution, it was how the tapes were treated differently that I'm talking about.

It's NBC. They don't hide from their lean to the left. Just as Fox doesn't hide from their lean to the right. I think most people are aware of this. It's also likely one person/department of the news bureau made that decision since it wasn't a huge story to begin with. IMO Romney's comments, whether you agree with them or not, was a big deal because they were more timely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they originally report something wrong, which seems obviously wrong, and then later correct themselves and that's points in their favor? It's better to correct than to never correct, but best yet would be not to jump to the wrong report in the first place.

Where did the NYT "wrongly" report about the issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care if the comment was bad or not, I don't feel like it revealed anything new about Obama, he's always wanted more redistribution, it was how the tapes were treated differently that I'm talking about.

Like ghdi said, this quote was less relevant because it was 14 years old. I'm tired of both sides bringing up old stuff. Maybe we can cynically say that politicians change to get votes, but I want people who are willing and able to adapt as they learn more. The president gets more information than anyone else in the country. I don't want a president who has decided everything before taking office. I want a president who adapts based on what he has learned, hence a 14 year old quote means less than a recent one. Obviously, I'd hope/expect Romney to adapt in office as well (always the issue when a challenger is running against the current president -- he knows less by not being in office), but I'd say that Romney's quote from a week ago tells us more than Obama's 14 years ago when he was a kid who had little knowledge of Washington.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did the NYT "wrongly" report about the issue?

I'm talking about all the places that originally reported the comment as not a joke, as mentioned in the link you posted.

Like ghdi said, this quote was less relevant because it was 14 years old. I'm tired of both sides bringing up old stuff. Maybe we can cynically say that politicians change to get votes, but I want people who are willing and able to adapt as they learn more. The president gets more information than anyone else in the country. I don't want a president who has decided everything before taking office. I want a president who adapts based on what he has learned, hence a 14 year old quote means less than a recent one. Obviously, I'd hope/expect Romney to adapt in office as well (always the issue when a challenger is running against the current president -- he knows less by not being in office), but I'd say that Romney's quote from a week ago tells us more than Obama's 14 years ago when he was a kid who had little knowledge of Washington.

Like I said, the issue was obviously important enough for the news to spend 2 nights on it.

The issue is the news running with 1 edited audio tape and delaying running with an unedited audio piece to try and find a longer version in hopes it would be less damaging.

Maybe you just wanted to talk about the quote in general, but by quoting me it seemed like you were disputing something I said, but your response didn't relate to what I was talking about at all.

Edited by Devils731

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue is the news running with 1 edited audio tape and delaying running with an unedited audio piece to try and find a longer version in hopes it would be less damaging.

Maybe you just wanted to talk about the quote in general, but by quoting me it seemed like you were disputing something I said, but your response didn't relate to what I was talking about at all.

I'd argue that they ran with Romney because it was new (if not perfect), and delayed Obama because it was not new (though flawless),

In the end, it all seems to be theater, which scares me a lot. I'll vote Obama, because I agree with his policy, and I like Obama, but that may have everything to do with him being a good performer, which Romney (and Kerry in '04) is not. What really scares me is that I have no fvcking clue what anyone believes, and our views of politicians may very well be determined by who airs what. I think GHDI has a point about why NBC chose to air their quote when they did, but I'm biased and could be wrong, and the fact that THIS is what determines our opinions of politicians because we know they change their policies based on some combination of the party line and what they think will get votes really bothers me a lot.

I'm probably not articulating this well, but it drives me crazy that no one is represented, and politics is more theater than policy, especially since the policy is made up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd argue that they ran with Romney because it was new (if not perfect), and delayed Obama because it was not new (though flawless),

NBC didn't delay talking about the Obama tape though. NBC felt it was important enough to talk about on the day it hit big, but only to have an Obama adviser on to defend the tape, they said they would not air the audio until it was verified, even though the Obama campaign agreed it was authentic.

So NBC did run with it, they just did so in a way that was as advantageous as they could make it for their guy. That's the bias that was there, from a source many, I believe, will say is unbiased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NBC didn't delay talking about the Obama tape though. NBC felt it was important enough to talk about on the day it hit big, but only to have an Obama adviser on to defend the tape, they said they would not air the audio until it was verified, even though the Obama campaign agreed it was authentic.

So NBC did run with it, they just did so in a way that was as advantageous as they could make it for their guy. That's the bias that was there, from a source many, I believe, will say is unbiased.

Fair. I'm not defending the media. I wish they didn't matter, but at this point, with the candidates perfectly crafting bull, they may be all that matters, and of course they're fvck ups. I don't buy the liberal media conspiracy sh!t, or the conservative conspiracy. I think they all blow, and shouldn't matter, but do because SOMEONE needs to call the candidates on their bull.

I would also still argue relevance -- what Romney said on the campaign trail suggests what he will attempt to do as president. What Obama said 14 years ago does not. NBS (who does have a liberal bias) allowed Obama's people to defend his statement, though anyone with common sense could have pointed out that the statement of a young liberal getting into politics is much different than that of the president of the United States, and should not be construed as a policy statement.

Edited by mouse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is your argument?? LOL. The interviews that CBS Promoted for their website so its available 24/7 Yes, big conspiracy.

This was just an example from last weekend. If it was reversed, do you think for a second (well you would cause your a zealot) CBS wouldn't have aired.

It's just another example in the decades of liberal wall to wall coverage. Even you know it's true, but you're a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm talking about all the places that originally reported the comment as not a joke, as mentioned in the link you posted.

By this standard it's impossible for the liberal media to ever do good then. The only way they can defend a conservative is if a story broke to begin with, and that story makes the entire media guilty so at best they are just fixing their collective wrong.

Please. The whole point is, if there was truly a mass conspiracy of liberal bias, this NYT reporter would have just stayed quiet and let the Romney Window blunder continue to explode, but he/she didn't. It's not even like it's a huge gesture, but it sure it pretty timely given how desperately Romney needed a bone thrown his way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, the issue was obviously important enough for the news to spend 2 nights on it.

The issue is the news running with 1 edited audio tape and delaying running with an unedited audio piece to try and find a longer version in hopes it would be less damaging.

Maybe you just wanted to talk about the quote in general, but by quoting me it seemed like you were disputing something I said, but your response didn't relate to what I was talking about at all.

Honest question, have you listened to the full tapes? Because you say "edited" like it was clipped and put together in a montage or sorts, that's not the case. It might be missing a pair of consecutive minutes (out of some 45) but I thought the small clip was more then complete to provide context. Short of "Haha just kidding" Romney meant exactly what he said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By this standard it's impossible for the liberal media to ever do good then. The only way they can defend a conservative is if a story broke to begin with, and that story makes the entire media guilty so at best they are just fixing their collective wrong.

Please. The whole point is, if there was truly a mass conspiracy of liberal bias, this NYT reporter would have just stayed quiet and let the Romney Window blunder continue to explode, but he/she didn't. It's not even like it's a huge gesture, but it sure it pretty timely given how desperately Romney needed a bone thrown his way.

All it took was one email to save newspapers and websites from making a mistake. It was either incompetence or a willful blind eye that had them jumping on Romney for this comment.

A NYT pool reporter being honest doesn't change all the sources that printed a "gotcha" piece on something they didn't check on and got wrong.

Obviously it's a guess, but I feel that scenario is much less likely to happen with Obama. The media would wait to verify or get a campaign response before running it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0