This is the most misleading set of numbers EVER. Yes, spending has been relatively flat relative to 2009. But 2009 was supposed to be a temporary spending increase. Those of us who opposed the stimulus and other temporary bailouts argued that one of the problems with it was that it would be used to establish a new ‘baseline’ from which all further spending would be measured. And that’s exactly what happened: After the stimulus, TARP, and other bailouts were done, Obama increased spending in subsequent years to almost match that one year’s huge 18% jump in spending, and now the 2009 baseline is being used to ‘prove’ that Obama didn’t raise spending at all. It’s a ridiculous argument. Spending in 2010 and 2011 should have dropped back down to about 3 trillion dollars. Instead, it’s about 500 billion dollars higher.
Well, it is has grown to a 4% difference, but there are a couple of things this is hiding, Romney has a VERY VERY tough electoral route to victory. That is why, for example, Nate Silver has a relatively close popular vote, but see Obama winning 72% of the time.
@ Sam Stone
The only thing I think that could really sway the election definitely to Romney are the unforeseen variables between now and November: a financial implosion in Europe, a Middle Eastern crisis, a massive dip in unemployment, or something along those lines. Most people have made up their minds already, and the only practical effects of Ryan on the ticket will (seemingly) be a more competitive race in Wisconsin and a tougher case for Romney in Florida.
It would have, had the supposed to be temporary, fiscally irresponsible Bush tax cuts been allowed to expire as the law they were passed under called for.
So you’re correct NOW, even if you weren’t correct when you said it?
Given that two of those three poll results weren’t showing on RCP when you said what you said.
And you’re cherry-picking by taking advantage of the three most recent ones also being the closest, disregarding a bunch of other recent polls that show Obama up by 7 or more.
This sort of thing discredits whatever valid points you do have. Because if I can immediately see bullshit the moment I start reading a post of yours, it certainly gives me less reason to keep on going, knowing I’m going to have to take a strainer to separate valid points from more bullshit the rest of the way.
What? If the tax cuts had been allowed to expire, spending would be 500 billion dollars lower? How do you figure that?
And you do know that the Obama administration only wants to allow the tax cuts on the rich to expire, right? Having them all expire was never on the table. And the tax cuts on the rich amount to about 80 billion per year, which is a lot of money but would barely make a dent in the trillion+ dollar deficits Obama has been running.
[QUOTE=2ManyTacos;15380109The only thing I think that could really sway the election definitely to Romney are the unforeseen variables between now and November: a financial implosion in Europe, a Middle Eastern crisis, a massive dip in unemployment, or something along those lines.[/QUOTE]
And the GOP and its partisans have only about a 10 week envelope left for the necessary disaster to achieve their (stated!) overarching goal of making Obama a one-term president.
Is it optimism or pessimism to hope for something very bad to happen? And have you failed if it doesn’t?
Holy cow. I said that Romney was ‘almost’ within the margin of error. And that’s true. The nit-picking and sophistry you guys engage in to win an argument at any cost is a wonder to behold. I say something that’s absolutely true, in support of a point that is eminently defensible. Instead of debating the point I made (which wasn’t even partisan, for pete’s sake), you’ve got to ignore the ‘almost’ qualifier, then make a pedantic point about the margin of error, then use that to announce that because of this nitpick, everything else I have to say must be discredited. Unbelievable.
Fiddle Peghead tried the same trick: On a board that constantly disparages ‘conservatives’ as a group, I refer to ‘liberals’, and suddenly I’m taken to task for not precisely carving them into smaller sub-groups, and as a result everything I have to say is rendered invalid.
Well, I guess that’s the kind of stuff you have to resort to if you can’t answer the actual point being made.
For the record, here’s a summary of all the recent polls: RealClearPolitics Poll Summaries. Yes, the last few polls had a bunch showing Obama up by 7 points or more - not surprising considering the barrage of nasty attack ads he’s launched that have gone unanswered. But if you go back a month, the polls are much closer. Obama clearly has a small lead, but it’s ‘almost’ within the margin of error. Considering that the election is still 3 months away, and most undecideds aren’t even paying attention yet, my point still stands - an election this close is still up in the air, although Obama clearly has the advantage. Do you disagree with that, or do you want to nit-pick some more?
A fair point, so let’s look at where that 500 billion went in the 2010 budget (numbers from here: 2010 United States federal budget - Wikipedia)
Relative to the 2009 budget, 2010 saw the following changes:
Mandatory:
$34 billion - SS
$334 billion - Unemployment, Welfare, other mandatory spending
$30 billion - Medicare
$34.8 billion - Medicaid
$29 billion - Interest
Discretionary:
$84 billion - DoD
$5 billion - VA
$20 billion - State and Foreign Affairs
$8.8 - HUD
$6 billion - Education
$7 billion - Commerce
$5 billion - National Infrastructure Bank
All other deltas appear to be below $1 billion. Total increase in outlays for these big hitters: ~$600 billion.
On the other side, TARP was about $500 billion off the books by itself. There was more for other “financial stabilization efforts”. So the net effect, like you said, is no decrease from 2009 to 2010.
So, which should come out? Obvious the big line is the extension of Unemployment benefits, coupled with the recession, and other Welfare program expenditures. Defense spending is the second-largest bump.
Seems pretty clear to me that we claw back that $500 billion through reduced spending as the economy grows and cuts to the rate of growth in DoD spending. I’d also look at what State is doing with their extra $20 billion.
Then once we get spending back down to the historical norm (something like 18-20% of GDP) we get revenues back up to match (they are currently at 16% or so).
It is interesting that Congressmen/women are so rarely tapped to be Vice Presidential nominees. Prior to this it seems Grealdine Ferraro was the most recent and then prior to that it lloks like it was the 1920s or so
Yeah, Representatives have two distinct disadvantages: lots of votes on political issues (less room to obfuscate if you literally wrote the GOP budget plan) and limited experience (both in a political sense - winning elections outside of your local district - and in an executive sense).
For that matter, the last (and, apparently, only) sitting Representative to have been elected President appears to have been James Garfield.
Uh, I think that would be good for Obama, wouldn’t it? 
On a substantial note, I’m not sure about your assertion that if any of those were to happen, it would “sway the election definitely to Romney.” Why do you think so?
adaher, Same Stone or anyone else: Is it true that Ryan’s plan adds 6 trillion to the federal debt over the next decade and 14 trillion by 2030? This doesn’t seem very fiscally conservative to me.
To paraphrase Deadeye Dick Cheney, Republican deficits don’t matter.
So we get to slash the social contract, give huge tax cuts to the wealthy, and double the national debt? It’s a win/win proposition, no doubt!
Maybe I phrased it wrong. What I meant is that if the unemployment rate somehow blew up exponentially - say, past 8.7 to 9% - then Obama would be in serious trouble because that would simply disqualify him in the minds of voters.
On the second point: I meant to say “definitively” but I guess I missed that in my earlier post. It goes back to the first point; basically, if something along the lines of what I said were to happen during the next few months - something that would inerently have to be quite unlikely and, for that matter, dramatic - it would probably disqualify Obama from the election in the minds of voters. From there, you’d then start to see consistent polls with strong Romney leads that would point to Obama being on the losing side of the race.
Well, THAT isn’t exactly the reason. 
Oh, what the hell, Sam, if you’re going to imagine what you’re being told, you might as well imagine who’s telling it to you, too.
Uh, you didn’t get my point. You said that a dip in unemployment was bad for Obama.