PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Puddles said:
Have we forgotten how the whole thing started?

Rick Santelli was criticizing efforts to help troubled homeowners, saying these efforts amounted to "subsidizing the losers' mortgages."

The very beginning of the Tea Party was about a complete lack of empathy and compassion and a prioritizing of dollars over human beings.

You know what my plan would have been? Any homeowners with subprime mortgages who could have made the payments at their initial, lower interest rates could have kept paying that amount.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I don't agree with the original intent of the TP but I take less issue with the original intent than what it morphed into.
 
Diablos said:
We'll see. If the improvement is not profound enough or Obama does a poor job of communicating that he is making things better, Republicans will easily capitalize on that.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree, but so far it has been pretty measurable. Obama and Dems are oddly on message lately, it's weird.


That can change once he really starts campaigning for the GE and not against baby boy Newt. I do not expect it to stay there. Mitt is going to try and capitalize on his "moderate appeal" aura to the best of his ability once he can finally get past the clowns he's been having to deal with in the primary.
Click to expand...
Turning around high unfavorables is very hard to do. Once voters sour on a candidate they seldom turn around in short order. I do expect his favorabes to shift, but I have a hard time seeing how he repairs bridges burned with Hispanics, for instance.

Yep, I know. But Obama's poll numbers took a noticeable decline ever since, and his new high seems to be 46... which used to be 51, which used to be 56, etc.
Click to expand...
Obama's numbers are lower than last year, but it's worth noting that along with the generic congressional ballot, Obama's approval has been improving with it.

TPM has a good chart on this today: http://media.talkingpointsmemo.com/slideshow/on-the-comeback-charting-obamas-2011?ref=fpblg

I think we all know these things move close to lockstep: perceptions of an improving economy have boosted Dems chances on the congressional ballot, and boosted Obama as well. And if they turn around, they will drag them down as well. But between Romney, well, being Romney and the continued improvement in the economy, I'm increasingly optimistic. Still squarely in "cautiously optimistic" territory, but more so than I was a month ago.

I hope it's come across by now that I'm a data-driven guy. I have my hunches, biases and gut feelings, but when it comes to this kind of stuff I look at the numbers. And they are tilting in Obama's favor at a good pace. Looking ahead, I see some challenges, but I don't anticipate the economy will be derailed the way it was last year. At the very least, the GOP's ability to contribute to that derail has been hampered, which is partly why I'm more optimistic. But if they do start to tip the other way, you'll see me expressing pessimism about Obama's chances as well. But right now I see things in a much more positive light.
 
empty vessel said:
What does it mean for a government to be "fiscally responsible"?
Click to expand...

Not to spend more than you can afford.

I'm not against any debt at all and I guess what amount the US can afford can be argued, but I've been led to believe the we can't keep going in the direction we're going. I think the tea party did a good job getting everyone to agree on that point.

Wolfgunblood Garopa said:
Back when the Constitution was written, military action unfolded very slowly. A treaty could be signed, and weeks later, thousands of miles away, two armies would continue to fight some of the bloodiest battles of The War of 1812 before they would know.

Now, military actions are carried out very quickly, intelligence is gathered instantly and we are capable of acting on that intelligence instantly.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but why is this an argument that congress shouldn't have to declare war if we want to take major military action. I guess I should clarify I have nothing against the War Powers Resolution.
 
remist said:
Not to spend more than you can afford.

I'm not against any debt at all and I guess what amount the US can afford can be argued, but I've been led to believe the we can't keep going in the direction we're going. I think the tea party did a good job getting everyone to agree on that point.



Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but why is this an argument that congress shouldn't have to declare war if we want to take major military action. I guess I should clarify I have nothing against the War Powers Resolution.
Click to expand...

The Tea Party forced us to focus on debt. Yes. Unfortunately they pressured the Republicans to fix it not by cutting defense spending. Not by raising taxes on the top earners. Not by fixing our infrastructure. They want to trade our social safety net for a reduction to our deficit which is the worst thing you can do. IMO, we're much worse off for their message.
 
ClovingSteam said:
The Tea Party forced us to focus on debt. Yes. Unfortunately they pressured the Republicans to fix it not by cutting defense spending. Not by raising taxes on the top earners. Not by fixing our infrastructure. They want to trade our social safety net for a reduction to our deficit which is the worst thing you can do. IMO, we're much worse off for their message.
Click to expand...

I guess I can agree that I don't think they're going about fixing the problem in the right way, but I don't know if we'd be better off without their message. Establishment conservatives needed a shock to the system after the spending of the bush years. I do wish the central message had evolved into something less partisan and destructive.

Edit: I guess reading the first post on this page we don't really disagree that much on this.
 
remist said:
Not to spend more than you can afford. I'm not against any debt at all and I guess what amount the US can afford can be argued, but I've been led to believe the we can't keep going in the direction we're going. I think the tea party did a good job getting everyone to agree on that point.
Click to expand...

I don't know what it means to say we can't keep going in the direction we're going. That could mean anything. I also think we can't keep going in the direction we're going, but I'm sure I mean something totally different from the tea party when I say it.
 
empty vessel said:
I don't know what it means to say we can't keep going in the direction we're going. That could mean anything. I also think we can't keep going in the direction we're going, but I'm sure I mean something totally different from the tea party when I say it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant specifically the deficit can't keep going in the direction its going(as in up and up at a the rate it's going). As far as how we reduce it, I don't exactly agree with the tea party all the time either.
 
remist said:
Sorry, I meant specifically the deficit can't keep going in the direction its going(as in up and up at a the rate it's going). As far as how we reduce it, I don't exactly agree with the tea party all the time either.
Click to expand...

First, the deficit hasn't gone up and up. The deficit for 2010 was less than for 2009. But why do you think government deficits matter? Why is it that the government cannot always have deficits? Historically, the government always has run deficits, and always increasing deficits at that.

Take a look at Tables 1.1-1.3.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

Given that the government, by virtue of its status as money creator, is the engine of the economy, the government typically has to net spend for an economy to grow. And that is exactly what the empirical evidence shows.
 
empty vessel said:
First, the deficit hasn't gone up and up. The deficit for 2010 was less than for 2009. But why do you think government deficits matter? Why is it that the government cannot always have deficits? Historically, the government always has run deficits, and always increasing deficits at that.

Take a look at Tables 1.1-1.3.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

Given that the government, by virtue of its status as money creator, is the engine of the economy, the government typically has to net spend for an economy to grow. And that is exactly what the empirical evidence shows.
Click to expand...

Sorry again. I shouldn't have said the direction "we are" going, but "we were" going. Also I'm not against any deficit at all. I just thought that both sides agreed that the deficit was growing too large and that we needed cuts and that we still aren't out of the woods yet.

I'm not closed to the argument that we've done enough and this level deficit is healthy, but I thought it was the consensus of most economists that we were still in trouble. Why did S&P downgrade our credit rating? Were they mistaken? I wouldn't mind reading something you could link me that makes this argument.
 
ShockingAlberto said:
Wait, what

Hoover signed it in as the national anthem in 1931 and people were holding their hands over their hearts then.

I am pretty sure he is straight making shit up now.
Click to expand...
Nah, it was FDR.
They used to salute before that.
The thing is, the salute looked like that -
vy4e0.jpg


Which is not the image you want to project when you're fighting the Nazis.

Further reading -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute
 
remist said:
I'm not closed to the argument that we've done enough and this level deficit is healthy, but I thought it was the consensus of most economists that we were still in trouble.
Click to expand...

Not trying to harp on you, but "still in trouble" has no content. It's too vague. I don't know what you are saying. In trouble about what? From what? The biggest threat we currently face is high unemployment. That amounts to more lost wealth than anything else imaginable.

remist said:
Why did S&P downgrade our credit rating? Were they mistaken?
Click to expand...

Yes, because it is not possible for a monopoly issuer of currency to have bad credit. It is incoherent. That's precisely why the government was able to sell debt for even more after the downgrade than before. S&P's downgrade was a political move intended to influence substantive US government policy (a form of blackmail), an attempt at bond vigilantism, but bond vigilantism is wholly ineffective against governments like the US that create their own money by fiat.

remist said:
I wouldn't mind reading something you could link me that makes this argument.
Click to expand...

S&P decision is irrelevant: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=15580
Who is in charge?: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=7838
 
A27_StarWolf said:
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/03/mark....htm?hpt=hp_t1

The Dow finished at a four year high, and the Nasdaq reaches levels not seen since 2000! S&P adds 2.1% for the week.

Right on.
Click to expand...
Doesn't mean shit.

ToxicAdam said:
Krugman being his willfully obtuse self, so he can jam in as many talking points as possible.

It's pretty clear that Romney was trying to make a point that his focus is on middle-class America, the ones who start the small businesses that create jobs, the ones whose consumer dollars help energize the economy. Romney just said it in a poor, awkward way. Which is what Romney does.
Click to expand...
It was poor and awkward, but also just wrong. The "very poor" are considerably more than the 1% or 2% of society that he seems to think they constitute. Even if you want to be charitable about his language, it should be pretty alarming that he gravely underestimates the number of people in poverty.

Puddles said:
Largely because Republican politicians suggested that we should just default.
Click to expand...
Nitpicking about language: This is the one thing Michele Bachmann actually had right. The United States would never have defaulted on its sovereign debt. It would just have been drastically underbudget.
 
Invisible_Insane said:
Nitpicking about language: This is the one thing Michele Bachmann actually had right. The United States would never have defaulted on its sovereign debt. It would just have been drastically underbudget.
Click to expand...

Point taken. Still, it was a complete disregard for economic realities that got our rating downgraded, and this came entirely from House Republicans.

Everyone with a modicum of common sense knew that raising the debt ceiling was a no-brainer, and was in fact the only option available.
 
remist said:
Why did S&P downgrade our credit rating? Were they mistaken?
Click to expand...
For the same reason they gave all that toxic crap AAA.
Because they're don't know what they're fucking talking about.
Seriously, if you know anyone who work in Wall Street, ask for his opinion about rating agencies.
His answer might surprise you.

The market (as can be seen throw the t-bill yields) have said in a pretty clear voice that it doesn't believe in that downgrade.
 
And as long as we're on the point of downgrades, it bears pointing out that Moody's and Fitch still have U.S. debt at AAA or its equivalent. I'm not saying that we should be particularly invested in what they think anyway, but it's not as though there's some broad agreement among investors that the U.S. is more likely to default. S&P is trying to cut its way to credibility because of how incredibly embarrassed they were by the financial crisis.

Nate Silver had a pretty thorough review of the downgrade.
 
Invisible_Insane said:
And as long as we're on the point of downgrades, it bears pointing out that Moody's and Fitch still have U.S. debt at AAA or its equivalent. I'm not saying that we should be particularly invested in what they think anyway, but it's not as though there's some broad agreement among investors that the U.S. is more likely to default. S&P is trying to cut its way to credibility because of how incredibly embarrassed they were by the financial crisis.

Nate Silver had a pretty thorough review of the downgrade.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with this. S&P was completely asleep and had Lehman as AAA the day before the collapsed. Now they're over compensating in an attempt to gain some credibility.
 
Averon said:
If the economy continues to improve, then they are just wasting their money.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. The real fun begins when the Republicans make up their minds and decide who they are going to chose to be the second man to lose to Obama. I for one, can't wait.
 
Stealth jobs boom: 6 months, 2 million jobs
By Chris Isidore @CNNMoney February 3, 2012: 12:52 PM ET



chart-unemployment.top.gif





Companies are saying the job market is getting better. Workers are saying it's already kicked into high gear. Friday's jobs report showed a gain of 243,000 jobs. But a separate survey of households used to determine the unemployment rate shows much, much stronger job gains.

The number of people saying they were employed increased by 631,000 in January alone. That's the biggest one-month gain since just before the Great Recession started in late 2007. And the three-month and six-month increases are similarly impressive -- 1.1 million more say they have jobs compared to October, and nearly 2 million more people say they're working since July's reading. That is the best six-month job gain since August 2005, when the unemployment rate was a healthy 4.9%. January's unemployment rate is still a painfully high 8.3%. But the unemployment rate has fallen from 9.1% in the last six months on the strength of the increasing number of those saying they have found work.

So the spike in Americans saying they're working could be an early sign of much stronger-than-expected economic growth ahead. Typically economists pay more attention to the jobs number produced by the survey of employers than to the households survey. But the employer survey can miss hiring by very small businesses, start-ups and self-employed workers.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, says the household survey serves as a better sign of where the economy is heading at turning points like when it's going into recession and when it's ready to take off.
He said one reason job growth has been so disappointing since the official end of the recession in June 2009 is that there has been weaker than expected new business start-ups during that period.

He and other economists said this employment reading, and other data showing a pick-up in demand for credit by small businesses, makes them hopeful we're finally getting that long-overdue business creation.

The jump in those saying they found work "probably represents people finally feeling good enough, and credit is flowing freely enough, to start businesses," Zandi said. "That augers very, very well."
​


######################


Interesting take by Mark Zandi of Moody Analytics. If he's correct we might not see that huge up shift of the unemployment rate like some are expecting. And why is Romney still blaming Obama for the economy today? Couldn't he let it rest for one day?
 
remist said:
Not to spend more than you can afford.

I'm not against any debt at all and I guess what amount the US can afford can be argued, but I've been led to believe the we can't keep going in the direction we're going. I think the tea party did a good job getting everyone to agree on that point.
Click to expand...

We can afford a whole lot more debt given the low interest rates we are enjoying on our loans
 
I have to say the manufacturing jobs gains (50K) is probably the most impressive thing about the jobs report. Definitely seems like we're on the right track now.

I still think the housing market has a lot of problems which is going to weigh things down. Still got a ton of homeowners who are under water. But it does seem people who can afford to stay in their homes with a loan modification are doing so. If they can hang on long enough, their home values may eventually creep back up to at least reasonable levels.
 
Remember the guy who helped Romney destroy Gingrich in Florida?

He was not retained because he got too much credit for Romney's performance.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72433.html

A GOP operative who won plaudits for bolstering Mitt Romney’s recent debate performances is not being retained by the frontrunner’s campaign, an apparent victim of internal tensions over staff receiving too much credit for the candidate’s comeback, POLITICO has learned.
Click to expand...

Oh God, lol.
 
remist said:
Limited government
Click to expand...

What do you mean by this? It's a very vague term. Limiting things like Social Security, Medicare, welfare and such? How about public education? Getting rid of the EPA?

more fiscal responsibility
Click to expand...

Generally when people say this, they mainly mean focusing on spending cuts. What about tax hikes?

and strict adherence to the constitution.
Click to expand...

You gave some examples:

The Patriot act, NDAA and I think we need to declare a war before before we take any major military action. I think the executive branch has to much power.

I probably disagree with the tea party on a lot of stuff.
Click to expand...

Yes, you do. For example:

The Patriot act, NDAA and I think we need to declare a war before before we take any major military action. I think the executive branch has to much power.
Click to expand...


Sorry, not trying to pick on you, I really do want to know where you stand on this sort of thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
Football Thread 2017/18 |OT| Relegated to Community
397 398 399 400 401
20K
1M
D4Danger replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
UK PoliGAF |OT3| - Strong and Stable Government? No. Coalition Of Chaos!
37 38 39 40 41
2K
258K
firehawk12 replied
Top Bottom