State of the Union: Obama seals his fate

[Mr_Smashy]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Of course there’s diminishing returns. But on what basis do you say that we’re well past that level? It seems to me that we never even approached that level: the stimulus package was way too small, and it’s ending way too quickly. It’s possible that as ARRA money runs out this year, we’ll see a double-dip.

To continue your analogy: your family finds the $5,000 in the driveway. The mom says, “Let’s spend it on tuition so I can get my CFA certification!” The dad says, “No, let’s spend $100 so I can buy a new shirt and pair of slacks to wear to interviews!” The dad wins, he doesn’t get a new job with his new clothes, and the family’s income doesn’t improve.

The in-laws conclude that they should have put all the money toward the debt.

:rolleyes:

What basis do you have to say that we didn’t spend enough? (*and please don’t cite Krugman or other partisan hacks who might hold that position, just the facts please).

Remember, every dollar we are spending, we are doing it borrowed from China (and Japan, and others). Those must be paid back, and with interest. That will raise future rates, sap future economic growth, burden the kids’ generation, and take away funding from stuff that I thought lefties loved, like domestic programs.

You’d argue that the Federal Government can make those spending decisions quicker and more effective (and more efficient) than the future private sector. Frankly, you show your ignorance of how the Federal Procurement Process works. I’ve heard some of the squishy lefties out there say that we should pay people to dig holes, then fill them up, etc. … the important thing is to get people working and pump money into the economy.

Sorry, but that’s not how a big-boy economy works, and it’s a shame that so many here don’t understand that.

As for your amusing attempt to continue my analogy - in America’s case, the Mom had already been given 4 or 5 degrees by the Feds, and the Dad already has 14 or 15 interview shirts in his closet. (or are you going to argue that there’s no current federal ‘investment’… there’s that word again… in Education or Healthcare?).

you want to double down. I say, we don’t have the cash, pay down the debt first.

[Ravenman]

@Mr_Smashy

I think your saying my philosophy is mostly incoherent is pretty insulting though; who’s to say what’s right or wrong? This is an opinion forum, no? And I think that my version of moderate has just as much validity as yours. You’ll notice I didn’t insult you.

I didn’t use the word incoherent in the sense of “nonsense,” I used it in the sense of unclear or confusing relationships between different concepts. You seem to have very strong views on issues that seem to swing between very right wing and very left wing positions. It doesn’t mean you cannot argue your points intelligibly, I am meaning to say that your views are unpredictable.

I did not mean it as a personal criticism, but as a way to describe your positions which seem to swing from one extreme to another.

And no, I do not believe your definition of moderate is valid, for the reasons I have explained. A political moderate generally seeks consensus on issues, while your positions tend to be very strongly held, stridently argued, and in total not within the range of opinions generally held by mainstream moderates. I reject the idea that one can take the mean or median of an extreme range of political opinions and then call that person a moderate.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Put another way, Smashy, the Klan is moderate by your definition. Sure, they want to disenfranchise (or kill) black people and Catholics, but they also want to expand the welfare state.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Mr_Smashy

:rolleyes:

What basis do you have to say that we didn’t spend enough? (*and please don’t cite Krugman or other partisan hacks who might hold that position, just the facts please).

I’m happy to cite a Nobel-Prize-winning economist; it’s absurd to dismiss him as a partisan hack. The only reason you do so is your own blind partisanship: anyone who analyzes the situation differently from you is partisan. It’s an old and tired trick, and I ain’t fooled.

You’d argue that the Federal Government can make those spending decisions quicker and more effective (and more efficient) than the future private sector. Frankly, you show your ignorance of how the Federal Procurement Process works. I’ve heard some of the squishy lefties out there say that we should pay people to dig holes, then fill them up, etc. … the important thing is to get people working and pump money into the economy.

Sorry, but that’s not how a big-boy economy works, and it’s a shame that so many here don’t understand that.

First, that’s not what I’d argue. I’d argue that the federal government will spend for the public interest, whereas private entities will spend for their individual interest, and in a recession, it makes little sense on an individual basis to spend, but it makes great public interest to spend. The federal government wouldn’t spend more quickly, despite your pitiful strawman; rather, they’d spend. And yeah, actually, that IS how a big boy economy works, and it’s a shame that you don’t understand that: it’s how one gets out of a recession. Belt-tightening does nothing for a recession. You’re stuck in 18th-century models, but we’re in a 21st-century world.

As for your amusing attempt to continue my analogy - in America’s case, the Mom had already been given 4 or 5 degrees by the Feds, and the Dad already has 14 or 15 interview shirts in his closet. (or are you going to argue that there’s no current federal ‘investment’… there’s that word again… in Education or Healthcare?).

Look, if you don’t understand the analogy, just say so. What you suggested has nothing to do with the analogy. I’m happy to clarify it for you:

In my continuation of your analogy, getting a degree (or buying a shirt) is equivalent to the government’s spending of money above normal spending levels in order to stimulate the economy, in an effort to jump-start spending. What’s already in place is obviously not doing the job.

you want to double down. I say, we don’t have the cash, pay down the debt first.

Seriously? You think a recession is the time to pay down the debt? That’s an incredibly foolish idea.

Again, paying down the debt is a good idea. It’s what you do during good times: you use extra revenue (and obtain extra revenue) in order to pay down the debt. You borrow during bad times.

Just like a family does.

[gonzomax]

No president ever cut taxes at the same time he started 2 (TWO) wars. It would be fiscal suicide and very irresponsible. That is what Bush did. Then we had a huge banking flameout with de-regulation, offshoring and stupid Greenspan type policies providing the kindling.
Then Obama becomes president. What’s his problem. Flip the switch from deficits and stupid policies and all the damage will magically disappear. Of course the party that caused all the damge is waging a huge campaign to prevent Obama from succeeding. They are using as much diversion and sleight of hand to pretend they were just being fiscally responsible. Sadly, there are people dumb enough to buy it.

[Mr_Smashy]

@Ravenman

I didn’t use the word incoherent in the sense of “nonsense,” I used it in the sense of unclear or confusing relationships between different concepts. You seem to have very strong views on issues that seem to swing between very right wing and very left wing positions. It doesn’t mean you cannot argue your points intelligibly, I am meaning to say that your views are unpredictable.

I did not mean it as a personal criticism, but as a way to describe your positions which seem to swing from one extreme to another.

And no, I do not believe your definition of moderate is valid, for the reasons I have explained. A political moderate generally seeks consensus on issues, while your positions tend to be very strongly held, stridently argued, and in total not within the range of opinions generally held by mainstream moderates. I reject the idea that one can take the mean or median of an extreme range of political opinions and then call that person a moderate.

Understood and agreed with.

Now, back to the question at hand, why the word moderate was brought up in the first place… do you now see that someone with approximately equal positions on both sides of the fence is in better position to judge Obama’s track record and plans as per the OP.

Go back and read your post 76 in this thread. You pretty much accuse me of not wanting to give Obama any credit (well, you don’t name names but we’ve learned here that one can get credit for all kinds of inferences without actually naming names - eh Marley?).

If your definition of moderate is the guy who sits in the middle of the road on everything, where he gets run over, then I’m not that. I’m an independent then. I would suggest that I’m still more credible wrt policy-based discussions than the True Believers that make up 95% of the SDMB; I’d rather make my own decisions than swallow the doctrinaire platforms of the panty-wearing lefties (or mouth-breathing righties, for that matter).

[Mr_Smashy]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

First, that’s not what I’d argue. I’d argue that the federal government will spend for the public interest, whereas private entities will spend for their individual interest, and in a recession, it makes little sense on an individual basis to spend, but it makes great public interest to spend.

Why? Why does it make little sense on an individual basis to spend? 70% of the economy, give or take, is private consumption and economic activity. Why does Government spending have to be the answer? Is that just the big-government, liberal way, so it must be right? Remember the objective: revive the economy, not (necessarily) build a bridge or a new carrier.

The federal government wouldn’t spend more quickly, despite your pitiful strawman; rather, they’d spend.

You have said something completely incoherent here if you are trying to argue for more Government spending - unless you agree with me that the Government would spend too slowly and inefficiently than the public would?

Look, if you don’t understand the analogy, just say so. What you suggested has nothing to do with the analogy. I’m happy to clarify it for you:

In my continuation of your analogy, getting a degree (or buying a shirt) is equivalent to the government’s spending of money above normal spending levels in order to stimulate the economy, in an effort to jump-start spending. What’s already in place is obviously not doing the job.
Seriously? You think a recession is the time to pay down the debt? That’s an incredibly foolish idea.

Again, paying down the debt is a good idea. It’s what you do during good times: you use extra revenue (and obtain extra revenue) in order to pay down the debt. You borrow during bad times.

Just like a family does.

Well, I used the analogy in regards to Obamacare, originally, in my post from 3:04pm yesterday. Feel free to catch up. Then you started talking about educational degrees and shirts. Whatever.

The point is, we’ve got this huge new entitlement that I’ve shown will be a tremendous burden, fiscally, on future Americans. We cannot afford it. At some point in the future, the times will be good again - but we’ve locked in a huge amount of spending now, thanks to this entitlement.

However I do agree that parts of ARRA made sense, including the temporary tax cut and some of the projects (some of which my company actually bid on in fact, like the NTIA Broadband initiative and the new VA hospitals, so I know them better than you or anyone else on this board I’m guessing). Some of ARRA was a slush fund for guys like Reid to pander to the [del]thugs[/del] unions.

[Lobohan]

It’s easy to be moderate when you don’t actually know any of the facts. For instance, if someone is angry about Obama’s increase to the debit, they may not understand that the stimulus was necessary. That’s not a liberal view, that’s the mainstream view of economists around the world.

To disbelieve that is indulging in fringe whackjobbery. If someone is immune to facts, of course it’s easier to throw up your hands and say both sides are the same. But if you incorporate facts into your thinking you have to start critically assessing things based on reason. Lack of a stimulus would have made the situation we’re in now much, much worse. So the spending on the stimulus was a good thing. If someone was actually thinking about their stance, they wouldn’t hold the stimulus against Obama’s record.

If you get stabbed and your wife stops the bleeding with a bandage, the money spent on the bandage wasn’t wasted. Unless you value life less than the bandage. The stimulus money wasn’t wasted unless you value the economic value it provided less than the money.

To claim that you need to pay the debt down first, before stopping a fire, is a fine example of someone being moderate by virtue of complete ignorance.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Mr_Smashy

Why? Why does it make little sense on an individual basis to spend?

Companies depend on consumers purchasing their products. If consumers are out of work, they won’t purchase your product. So why invest in making products to be purchased?

Everyone makes the same rational calculation and doesn’t invest, doesn’t hire. It’s perfectly rational for every company. And it dooms the economy.

The government hires even though it’s unprofitable. Then consumers have money in their pockets. Then they start buying products. Then companies start hiring people away from those government jobs, and the economy is jump-started. That’s why it makes sense.

You have said something completely incoherent here if you are trying to argue for more Government spending - unless you agree with me that the Government would spend too slowly and inefficiently than the public would?

There’s a certain irony in your writing that after accusing me of being incoherent. Did you mean “more slowly”?

Because yeah, the government is slower than the private sector, and in many arenas more inefficient. However, as I explained above, at least they’ll spend when it’s unprofitable to do so. And in a recession, you need someone to do that.

However I do agree that parts of ARRA made sense, including the temporary tax cut and some of the projects (some of which my company actually bid on in fact, like the NTIA Broadband initiative and the new VA hospitals, so I know them better than you or anyone else on this board I’m guessing). Some of ARRA was a slush fund for guys like Reid to pander to the [del]thugs[/del] unions.

Given that I helped direct ARRA funds for my school, I doubt you know them better than me, but maybe you do. I do know that ARRA funds enabled us to purchase new book sets for reading groups, replacing the old, falling-apart ones; enabled us to replace bulbs in our digital projectors; enabled us to hire a reading specialist to work with our population of students who are far below grade level.

And I know that the book sellers are likelier to hire someone, due to our book order, as are the bulb manufacturers, and we have a reading specialist who might be able to afford to go out to dinner once in awhile, now that she has a job, and that the restaurants she goes to might hire an extra cook due to her patronage, and that that cook might decide to use his extra income to buy a bike for his daughter, and the bike store might hire additional help to deal with the upswing in demand…

That’s how the jump-start process works. Unfortunately, we didn’t pump enough money into the economy to make it work really well. Still, it was better than nothing.

[Una_Persson]

@Oakminster

January 25, 2011. The beginning of the end for the Obama administration.

Eh. Many of the “esteemed bearded sages o’ the SDMB” gravely pronounced the end of the Republican Party 2 years ago.

[jayjay]

@Una_Persson

Eh. Many of the “esteemed bearded sages o’ the SDMB” gravely pronounced the end of the Republican Party 2 years ago.

Just wishful thinking on our part…

[Marley23]

The Senate Appropriations Committee has banned earmarks for the duration of this Congress. So it would seem there is no chance of a bill with earmarks reaching Obama’s desk or of Obama having to veto a bill he supports because it contains earmarks. It seems the OP was a little premature.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I would also guess that Obama already had that set up before he spoke. Pretty crafty.