The Dream Team - DPChallenge Forums

09/07/2012 07:52:50 PM · #401

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

We have only had a tepid, tepid recovery.

Even by 2009 Obama standards:
//www.businessinsider.com/unemployment-rate-projections-2012-9

09/08/2012 03:24:14 PM · #402

Originally posted by JamesDowning:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
...saving the auto industry

Yeah... //www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/08/15/general-motors-is-headed-for-bankruptcy-again/

Seems the government just pushed chapter 11 a little further down the road.

A very speculative argument.

09/08/2012 04:23:11 PM · #403

Originally posted by JamesDowning:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We have only had a tepid, tepid recovery.

Even by 2009 Obama standards:
//www.businessinsider.com/unemployment-rate-projections-2012-9

This was an estimate by the Obama transition team that was criticized by economists at the time for: (1) being too optimistic about where unemployment would top out (the Obama team estimated 9 percent, but it actually went above 10 percent); and (2) for being too weak, that there was too much in the way of tax cuts and not enough in direct spending. With regard to the second criticism, their plan was watered down further by adding even more tax cuts in an attempt to get the Republicans to sign on.

But I'm sure you're familiar with the CBO and Department of Commerce and other independent economic analyst firms' estimates of job creation from the stimulus of anywhere from 1.8 to 2.8 million jobs.

And so your point is what exactly?

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

09/08/2012 04:54:51 PM · #404

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by kawesttex:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This narrative has a huge hole. What about the first two years when Obama had zero obstruction?

What about it? What is it specifically that you're criticizing?

I think he's referring to the fact that the current administration had a majority in the House and the Senate.

Yes, and that's when the Obama Administration managed to accomplish everything in my previous post, when Democrats controlled the Congress. Since the Republicans took control of the House almost two years ago, the only cooperation from Republicans on any economic initiatives has been two pieces of a jobs bill that Obama tried to get passed, the extension of the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits.

Oh, and I forgot to mention health care reform which, despite right-wing propaganda, is going to HELP the economy, not hurt it.

Here's the catch-22 of that argument.

The current criticism of Obama is that the economy is no better off than it was in the beginning of his term.

You reply the Republicans were obstructionists and if they would just get in line we would have been much better off.

I pointed out that the first two years (literally half of his presidency) had no obstruction.

You reply, well, look at all that he did in those two years.

Here's where the argument gets bad for democrats. If Obama did so much in the first two years, why did it have such a weak effect on the recession? If the answer is that it takes more time and more action (at which point the Republicans became obstructionists) the rebuttal is that it then seems like he didn't really do as much as one gives him credit (he made little headway in turning things around while racking up huge bills). In other words, he had the chance for two years to turn the jets to maximum with little standing in his way. Not only that, but his policies have had an additional two years to sink in and work yet he couldn't effect much change despite all his efforts. We have only had a tepid, tepid recovery. It seems quite ridiculous to suddenly blame the Republicans. They only got in the way, they didn't actually reverse anything that had been done. Nothing was revoked. Nothing was rescinded. Obama's actions from the first two years have had another two years to sink in and work. They have not.

I'm not saying the Republicans have any better ideas (and they might easily be worse), but to waltz into the conversation and say we'd be doing fine if the damn Republicans would have let us keep doing our thing just doesn't cut it in my book. The blinders are on in full effect at that point.

As I said in my previous post, Obama can be criticized for under-estimating the depth of the recession, and also for compromising away some of the impact of the Recovery Act. But its impact on the economy was positive. The conclusion is that you do more of what worked, as Obama has been attempting to do, but he is being blocked by Congressional Republicans. And your argument is ridiculous, that the Obama Administration didn't get the economy back to full employment in two years and it therefore has failed. That's Jesus Christ you're thinking of, not a mere mortal.

And don't mischaracterize what I said. I didn't say "we'd be doing fine" absent Republican obstruction, but certainly there will not be any positive movement on the economy if the Republicans remain on their current course.

But hey, maybe you'd prefer the Republicans in power. After all, the House Republicans have, in the last two years, voted 55 times to restrict abortion rights, and have voted 33 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They also passed a jobs bill that produces no jobs:

Bogus GOP Jobs Bill

Republican Jobs Bill Won't Actually Create Jobs, Say Economists

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

09/09/2012 01:32:43 AM · #405

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If Obama did so much in the first two years, why did it have such a weak effect on the recession?

Im getting sort of irked by this "is the economy better now that it was when Obama took office, after all he had 2 years with both houses to fix it all."

This is a terrible argument for two obvious reasons. The first just simple math, the simply reality is Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority from September 24, 2009 to February 4, 2010. That was when he put through some legislation. However, for the first 6 months of holding office Senator Al Franken's seat was contested and he was unable to actually vote. When he was finally seated in July of 2009, Senator Ted Kennedy had not cast a single vote for over 4 months due to terminal brain cancer, which he later died of. During the time between when Franken was seated and when Kennedy died, the Democrats did technically have enough votes to break a filibuster, however, Kennedy never got to the floor to make that vote, meaning the the GOP was able to block any and all legislation during that time. After Senator Kennedy passed away, Senator Paul Kirk was an interim Senator, and was the 60th vote on Obamacare. Paul Kirk served for 19 weeks. That is the length of time that the Democrats had a functioning super majority in the Senate. After that, Senator Scott brown won Senator Kennedy's seat and broke the super majority in the Senate.

OK, so the two year thing was never there. After Brown made the senate we had more filibusters in Obama's first term (241 and counting) than Bush's first (133) or Clinton's (162)

The second point is more subtle. Are we better off than we were 4 years ago? The question assumes a static environment since it only looks at two snapshots. Then. Now. When Obama took office, the economy was in free fall, the greatest and most sudden loss of capital since 1926. The American economy is big, and when it is headed south, it takes a while to turn it around, think of turning an aircraft carrier and multiply by a few thousand. Now that the massive loss of capital has abated, and we have slowly crept back towards the point we were at four years ago, is this a static achievement? If you see the change from massive loss to slow gain, then yes. If all you look at are snapshots, then no.

Five months after Obama took office, when none of his economic policies were in place the Dow hit 6,547, its value in March 2009. Today it is at 13,306. Are we better off than in November of 2008? No. Are we better off continuing the path that has lead us out of the worst economic crisis in our lifetimes, or returning to the policies that took us into it?

Message edited by author 2012-09-09 02:30:32.

09/09/2012 09:17:54 AM · #406

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If Obama did so much in the first two years, why did it have such a weak effect on the recession?

Im getting sort of irked by this "is the economy better now that it was when Obama took office, after all he had 2 years with both houses to fix it all."

This is a terrible argument for two obvious reasons. The first just simple math, the simply reality is Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority from September 24, 2009 to February 4, 2010. That was when he put through some legislation. However, for the first 6 months of holding office Senator Al Franken's seat was contested and he was unable to actually vote. When he was finally seated in July of 2009, Senator Ted Kennedy had not cast a single vote for over 4 months due to terminal brain cancer, which he later died of. During the time between when Franken was seated and when Kennedy died, the Democrats did technically have enough votes to break a filibuster, however, Kennedy never got to the floor to make that vote, meaning the the GOP was able to block any and all legislation during that time. After Senator Kennedy passed away, Senator Paul Kirk was an interim Senator, and was the 60th vote on Obamacare. Paul Kirk served for 19 weeks. That is the length of time that the Democrats had a functioning super majority in the Senate. After that, Senator Scott brown won Senator Kennedy's seat and broke the super majority in the Senate.

OK, so the two year thing was never there. After Brown made the senate we had more filibusters in Obama's first term (241 and counting) than Bush's first (133) or Clinton's (162)

The second point is more subtle. Are we better off than we were 4 years ago? The question assumes a static environment since it only looks at two snapshots. Then. Now. When Obama took office, the economy was in free fall, the greatest and most sudden loss of capital since 1926. The American economy is big, and when it is headed south, it takes a while to turn it around, think of turning an aircraft carrier and multiply by a few thousand. Now that the massive loss of capital has abated, and we have slowly crept back towards the point we were at four years ago, is this a static achievement? If you see the change from massive loss to slow gain, then yes. If all you look at are snapshots, then no.

Five months after Obama took office, when none of his economic policies were in place the Dow hit 6,547, its value in March 2009. Today it is at 13,306. Are we better off than in November of 2008? No. Are we better off continuing the path that has lead us out of the worst economic crisis in our lifetimes, or returning to the policies that took us into it?

I would add that, in many respects, this recession was like none other that we've experienced. The economy lost almost 9 million jobs, more than the last four recessions combined. More jobs were lost in this recession in a couple of months than were lost in some previous recessions in total. Just to give an idea about how long it takes to recover from massive job losses, it was three years before we got back to even with jobs in the 2001 recession, when about 2.5 million jobs were lost. Additionally, almost half the long-term unemployed in this recession are accounted for in the housing sector. The housing sector usually is the engine that helps lift the economy out of a recession, but in this case, as everyone knows, that sector was completely decimated. So to expect that the economy would bounce back from this crash in a couple of years, even under the best possible conditions, is highly unrealistic.

09/09/2012 12:13:23 PM · #407

I just took the "I Side With" survey. I agree with:

Jill Stein 93%
Barack Obama 92%
Rocky Anderson 69% (the candidate of the Justice Party, endorsed by Ralph Nader, hadn't heard of him before)
Gary Johnson 37% (on immigration issues)
Mitt Romney 1% (no major issues)
Virgil Goode 1% (no major issues)

New York Voters 61%
American Voters 56%

By Party:
Democratic 98%
Green 95%
Libertarian 15%
Republican 1%

09/09/2012 02:44:09 PM · #408

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

So your argument is because he didn't have super majority, that time cannot be counted? Majority is still majority and doesn't often happen in all 3 portions. It seems the argument you're making is that the Dems were not willing to reach across the isle during that period. Those first two years are also where we gained the majority of our recent national debt. The massive spending by the democratic controlled government is what is contributed to turned the tide in the house.

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

The second point is more subtle. Are we better off than we were 4 years ago? The question assumes a static environment since it only looks at two snapshots. Then. Now. When Obama took office, the economy was in free fall, the greatest and most sudden loss of capital since 1926. The American economy is big, and when it is headed south, it takes a while to turn it around, think of turning an aircraft carrier and multiply by a few thousand. Now that the massive loss of capital has abated, and we have slowly crept back towards the point we were at four years ago, is this a static achievement? If you see the change from massive loss to slow gain, then yes. If all you look at are snapshots, then no.

Five months after Obama took office, when none of his economic policies were in place the Dow hit 6,547, its value in March 2009. Today it is at 13,306. Are we better off than in November of 2008? No. Are we better off continuing the path that has lead us out of the worst economic crisis in our lifetimes, or returning to the policies that took us into it?

I agree that snapshot wise it is not obvious if we are better off. You're right, however, that if you include the rates of change in the snapshot, things are looking better. I think the big question however, has to do with whether the massive spending really had a positive effect beyond what the natural business cycle would have done. As with most things political, there is no clear answer. Arguments for both sides of the argument can be found.

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

I agree, it's political rhetoric. For anyone who pays attention, of course we're in a better position than when the economy was in the process of recessing. But it seems the question right now is what IS the new engine of the economy. I think many of us fear that the government is becoming the crutch of the economy... potentially the engine in some viewpoints. That is dangerous because that viewpoint relies on deficit spending to keep the economy at 'acceptable' levels... I think the point of some, is that we need to let the economy stabilize on its own. Just like the concerns with the social dependance on government handouts, I worry that our economy can also become dependent on the government. Either state is unhealthy and not sustainable.

09/09/2012 02:45:36 PM · #409

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Congratulations, you are part of the fringe.

09/09/2012 05:21:20 PM · #410

Originally posted by JamesDowning:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I just took the "I Side With" survey. I agree with:

Jill Stein 93%
Barack Obama 92%
Rocky Anderson 69% (the candidate of the Justice Party, endorsed by Ralph Nader, hadn't heard of him before)
Gary Johnson 37% (on immigration issues)
Mitt Romney 1% (no major issues)
Virgil Goode 1% (no major issues)

New York Voters 61%
American Voters 56%

By Party:
Democratic 98%
Green 95%
Libertarian 15%
Republican 1%

Congratulations, you are part of the fringe.

I think 56% agreement with American voters -- at least as far as this survey sample is concerned -- is hardly fringe.

09/09/2012 05:31:23 PM · #411

Originally posted by JamesDowning:

I think many of us fear that the government is becoming the crutch of the economy... potentially the engine in some viewpoints. That is dangerous because that viewpoint relies on deficit spending to keep the economy at 'acceptable' levels...

Not even the majority of Republicans are in accord with your statement. The majority of Republicans believe in stimulus and deficit spending during recessions, as was demonstrated during the recessions in the Reagan and Bush administrations. They voted for stimulus then, and they believe in it now, too, but they don't want to cop to it publicly.

Hypocrisy Hall of Fame

The Tea Party Pork Binge

The Republicans are also now screaming about how cuts to the military will kill jobs, after arguing for four years that government couldn't create jobs.

It's only when there's recession and a Democrat is in the White House that stimulus and deficit spending become evil, reckless spending, big government, a socialist plot.

Message edited by author 2012-09-09 17:32:28.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

09/09/2012 08:35:55 PM · #412

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by JamesDowning:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I just took the "I Side With" survey. I agree with:

Jill Stein 93%
Barack Obama 92%
Rocky Anderson 69% (the candidate of the Justice Party, endorsed by Ralph Nader, hadn't heard of him before)
Gary Johnson 37% (on immigration issues)
Mitt Romney 1% (no major issues)
Virgil Goode 1% (no major issues)

New York Voters 61%
American Voters 56%

By Party:
Democratic 98%
Green 95%
Libertarian 15%
Republican 1%

Congratulations, you are part of the fringe.

I think 56% agreement with American voters -- at least as far as this survey sample is concerned -- is hardly fringe.

I believe that means you side with the majority of people on 56% of the questions. Not that 56% of the US has the exact same opinion as you. A noteworthy difference.

My point was that apparently you are very much aligned with a party platform. Few people actually align that perfectly with one side or another.

Maybe fringe was the wrong word. Just that you find yourself at one end of the US political spectrum.

Message edited by author 2012-09-09 20:37:15.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

09/09/2012 08:42:06 PM · #413

Originally posted by JamesDowning:

Maybe fringe was the wrong word. Just that you find yourself at one end of the US political spectrum.

Funny that... when the word fringe gets bandied about I am apt to think of one specific party affiliation and some of the extreme views they hold.

Ray

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

09/09/2012 10:58:06 PM · #414

You are part of the problem Ray when you simply discount an entire party as being fringe just because you disagree with them.

I will agree with James in the sense that many of you on these posts are unquestioningly aligned with your party. Frankly, I have little political respect for anybody who cannot list one thing they think their party is wrong about and one thing the opposing party has right (and not just the flip side of the first half). 1% agreement with your opposition? Ouch.

Message edited by author 2012-09-09 22:58:42.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

09/10/2012 01:11:42 AM · #415

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Good Grief... listen to you carping about the rights and wrongs of a party and those who support it. Have you ever gone over and read some of the comments you hand out in the name of religion... you know ...Atheist are "Amoral" and the like.

Get real Doc... first of all I never mentioned any party by name since the comments apply to both entities and perhaps moreso one specific group, but I guess you didn't take the time to consider that small little factor.

Truth be told Doc, I took that test a while back and shockingly it would seem that my political affiliation is more in line with yours than just about anybody else in DPC... Go figure huh?

Other than that, do have a nice day. :O)

Ray

Message edited by author 2012-09-10 01:15:47.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

09/10/2012 08:36:28 AM · #416

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by JamesDowning:

Maybe fringe was the wrong word. Just that you find yourself at one end of the US political spectrum.

Funny that... when the word fringe gets bandied about I am apt to think of one specific party affiliation and some of the extreme views they hold.

Ray

I think members of both parties can hold equally extreme viewpoints. I may share a few of those views, but certainly not all.

I was 75% Republican, 65% Democratic according to the "I side with" survey.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

09/10/2012 11:02:36 AM · #417

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Get real Doc... first of all I never mentioned any party by name since the comments apply to both entities and perhaps moreso one specific group, but I guess you didn't take the time to consider that small little factor.

If that is the case you need to parse your words more carefully. You said "I am apt to think of one specific party". There's not much there that would have led me to think you are disenfranchised with both parties. I would be happy to hear you have problems with both...

The 1% comment was for Judith. I don't recall if you took that survey and what the results were.

Message edited by author 2012-09-10 11:03:24.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

09/11/2012 10:24:43 AM · #418

Paul Krugman sums it up nicely:

Obstruct and Exploit

Excerpt:

"What about the argument, which I hear all the time, that Mr. Obama should have fixed the economy long ago? The claim goes like this: during his first two years in office Mr. Obama had a majority in Congress that would have let him do anything he wanted, so heâ��s had his chance.

"The short answer is, youâ��ve got to be kidding.

"As anyone who was paying attention knows (emphasis added for you, DrAchoo), the period during which Democrats controlled both houses of Congress was marked by unprecedented obstructionism in the Senate. The filibuster, formerly a tactic reserved for rare occasions, became standard operating procedure; in practice, it became impossible to pass anything without 60 votes. And Democrats had those 60 votes for only a few months. Should they have tried to push through a major new economic program during that narrow window? In retrospect, yes â�� but that doesnâ��t change the reality that for most of Mr. Obamaâ��s time in office U.S. fiscal policy has been defined not by the presidentâ��s plans but by Republican stonewalling."

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

09/11/2012 12:57:41 PM · #419

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Paul Krugman sums it up nicely:

Bah, you're going to take the word of some Nobel prize-winning economist? Why not follow the lead of someone who really knows about the American economy, like Karl Rove ...

(We really need to add buttons for sarcasm tags ...)

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

09/11/2012 02:00:05 PM · #420

If we're making that claim that you can't blame the president unless they have control of both houses with a 60% majority in the senate, then we can't blame any president for anything since Carter. How is the stuff we hate during the W years HIS fault but not the democrats in the Senate and yet suddenly it's not Obama's fault but IS the fault of the Republicans in the Senate. It seems like a bit of directed blame or a double standard.

Recall that I don't REALLY think Obama could have gotten us out of the recession. I'm not blaming HIM, but I'm also not blaming the Republicans (or more accurately I blame them BOTH). I think the economy is under far less control than we think. Plus, if you look at that chart, we absolutely failed in our ability to predict the future. I remember two years ago seeing that chart being used as proof as to how things would have been WORSE had we not been going all Keynsian, but the kicker is the difference in the lines between "with stimulus" and "without stimulus" is far smaller (half a percent in 2012) than the error of "where we thought we would be" and "where we wound up" (2% in 2012). So the idea that we were smart enough to predict a 0.6% difference in the unemployment rate two years into the future and know with certainty that this was due to our stimulus spending is laughable. You might as well have had Malia and Sasha each draw a line on the graph and use that. It probably would have been just as good a guess.

As far as filibusters go, it's the same on both sides. It was the Republicans that first brought up the "nuclear option" because the democrats were filibustering GWB and of course they go and then filibuster up a storm (while the dems then go and talk about the previously sacriligious "nuclear option"). If Romney wins and the dems keep 40+ seats in the Senate, I expect exactly the same behavior during his administration. That's the state of politics in our country and they are ALL to blame. (and the Senate is generally the more respectful body compared to the jokers on both sides of the aisle in the House).

Message edited by author 2012-09-11 14:01:15.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

09/11/2012 02:30:17 PM · #421

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Paul Krugman sums it up nicely:

Bah, you're going to take the word of some Nobel prize-winning economist? Why not follow the lead of someone who really knows about the American economy, like Karl Rove ...

I hate to say it, but the Nobel prize is obviously a liberal group. Obviously Paul Krugman, who won a Nobel, and who published works such as The Conscience of a Liberal is going to back the Democrats. Considering his commentary as remotely objective is obviously flawed.

Also, to further argue Judith's quote... they DID push through a new major economic program. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

09/11/2012 04:59:18 PM · #422

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

How is the stuff we hate during the W years HIS fault but not the democrats in the Senate and yet suddenly it's not Obama's fault but IS the fault of the Republicans in the Senate.

The difference would be the number of Democrats who crossed the party lines to help G.W. enact his legislation. When a proposed law appeals to elements within the opposing party, it ought to be up to individual members to vote as they see fit for their constituents.
After Mr. Obama took office, Mr. McConnell stated the chief goal of his party was to limit the president to one term. As a result of that policy, and Mr. Norquist's pledge we have seen a new level of obstructionism and party politics, taking precedence over any attempt to do what is best for the country. We have seen an unprecedented uniformity in opposition to any legislation that comes out of the White House. The current attitude that nothing can get out of the Senate without a super-majority is clearly not what the founders envisioned and will serve only those who wish for a weak and dysfunctional government.
Remember when legislation would be passed or rejected with votes coming from either side of the aisle? That is supposed to be the way our government work.