Support NeoGAF

[ToxicAdam]

Government spending (as percent of GDP) has remained relatively static. The greatest swings happening when we increase/decrease military spending. Which seems to be reflected in that graph speculawyer posted.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pMscxxELH...pE7s3k/s1600/GovernmentSpendingPercentGDP.jpg

It doesn't seem like the "AM talk show listeners" would have much problem with that massive amount of military spending that was enacted under Bush/Reagan.

Political elites may still invoke Carter, but does the public actually care? I am highly skeptical. Bush is more relevant given the recency of his presidency. And his unpopularity may still harm Republicans. But the circumstances have changed. A Democrat is the incumbent. The War in Iraq, easily his signature failure, has ended. I think the electoral gains from the Bush association are exaggerated.

I don't think you base an entire campaign around it, but you have to keep it in the back of voters minds constantly. I saw a similar tactic (among surrogates) used against Hillary in the 08 primary, where people would constantly reference the fact that we might have a Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton run. The inference was that it was just more of the same tired thinking.

Political shorthand is a devestating tool in Presidential politics. Which is why Nixon/Carter's name still carried so much weight well past their shelflife. Even if invoking Bush's name is not demonstrably effective, it still is important to establish his name as a baseline for a certain type of thinking or shorthand for reckless/inept governing.

 

[The Technomancer]

How do you "increase government spending" and not mean "growth?" Do you know how words work?

edit: And who the hell argues in absolute terms. This is hilarious because earlier this page you used a weight gain problem to illustrate absolute numbers don't matter.

I think the weight example was to show that absolute numbers do matter...that its not commendable to slow spending growth if you're already so bloated anyways.

 

[Zamorro]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/your_deficit_in_charts.html

 

[Black Mamba]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/your_deficit_in_charts.html

Obama deserves blame for the extension of all the bush tax cuts since he was a coward and didn't try to force the upper brackets to run out.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

Political elites may still invoke Carter, but does the public actually care? I am highly skeptical. Bush is more relevant given the recency of his presidency. And his unpopularity may still harm Republicans. But the circumstances have changed. A Democrat is the incumbent. The War in Iraq, easily his signature failure, has ended. I think the electoral gains from the Bush association are exaggerated.

ToxicAdam vehemently disagrees, and he has links.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

It'll probably be a debate point. "Mr. Romney, can you name some significant ways your policies differ from those of the last GOP president, George W. Bush?"

 

[speculawyer]

Wow, thank you! I've been saying this for years. If republicans are looking to cut taxes, start with the payroll tax.

Yeah, but that means cutting taxes on the poor . . . and that is not the goal.


And besides, the payroll taxes are to try to make social security seem like a system you pay into and then get money out of. If you eliminate it and rely mostly on income taxes, it turns it more into that dreaded socialism!

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

Mitt Romney. Two months ago.

People are still clearly invoking Carter, even if it turns out to be ineffective.

I meant in a more significant way, as an actual campaign strategy. Good grief.

Well, at least this added something different to the page of replies to Kosmo's nonsense.

 

[Black Mamba]

Yeah, but that means cutting taxes on the poor . . . and that is not the goal.

It goes further. The republican goal is to raise taxes on the poor to fund tax cuts on the upper echelons right now.

Yet while conferring very large tax breaks on the estates of America’s wealthiest people, the Senate and House Republican proposals fail to extend provisions of the same 2010 legislation that extended improvements in tax credits for millions of low- and moderate-income working families and substantial numbers of modest-income college students. Failure to extend the improvements in the Child Tax Credit (CTC) and Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) would affect more than 13 million working-poor and near-poor families (including nearly 26 million children) in 2013, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimates. (In new figures that it released today, the Treasury Department estimates that failure to extend all of the refundable credit improvements in the 2010 legislation — including the expansion of the American Opportunity Tax Credit improvements that help defray a portion of higher education costs, as well as the EITC and CTC improvements — would affect 25 million families with incomes below $250,000.

If the CTC and EITC improvements enacted in 2009 and extended in 2010 expire, a single mother with two children working full time at the minimum wage — and earning about $14,000 — will receive a CTC of $173 in 2013 — instead of $1,725. A married couple with one child with earnings equal to the estimated 2013 poverty line will receive $1,934 less in EITC and CTC benefits combined.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3810

 

[speculawyer]

So you are saying that Obama can spend the same amount of dollars he is but should take more money in via taxes?

lol. Kosmos walked right into that one.

 

[Dram]

Romney Camp Once Again Warns Of ‘Soviet’ Threat

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/romney-soviet-threat-again.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

A foreign policy adviser to Mitt Romney’s campaign warned against policies that would aid “the Soviet Union” Wednesday, making him at least the third person from Team Romney — including Romney himself — to refer to a country that hasn’t existed since 1991 in the course of attacking President Obama’s foreign policy.

The Obama campaign has already accused Romney of having a “Cold War mindset” on foreign policy, so it naturally seized on a clip of longtime Republican diplomat Rich Williamson, a Romney adviser, speaking at the Brookings Institution Wednesday. Williamson was condemning the Obama approach to Syria.

He called the country “strategically important to the Soviet Union.”

 

[ViperVisor]

"Tripled" term reminded me of this.

Oct. 1988

The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.

And the lies to blame liberals are evergreen.
Oct. 1988

It is upsetting to read and hear the misleading statements that pass for informed opinion about the soaring U.S. national debt during the Reagan years. Bush, Quayle and their supporting charge that the Democratic Congress is the culprit.

The record shows that for Reagan's first six years the Republican party controlled the senate and a coalition of a solid Republican bloc and conservative Democrats gave him a working majority in the House. The massive deficits were cut back for the first time in 1987 when the Democrats had a working control of the Congress.

 

[daedalius]

Romney Camp Once Again Warns Of ‘Soviet’ Threat

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/romney-soviet-threat-again.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

Everyone must have missed the memo on the new red scare.

 

[speculawyer]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/your_deficit_in_charts.html

One problem with this that no one wants to admit is that part of the 'recession' may just be permanently lower economic conditions. The population is aging, there is stiff competition from cheaper foreign producers, oil costs are permanently higher, some metals/minerals cost more, etc.

 

[RustyNails]

Everyone must have missed the memo on the new red scare.

Republicans today are caricatures straight out of Dr Strangelove

 

[TacticalFox88]

Romney Camp Once Again Warns Of ‘Soviet’ Threat

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/romney-soviet-threat-again.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

The Soviet Union? Really? REALLY?! And this man wants to become President of the United States?

Stop the world I want off.

 

[GhaleonEB]

The Soviet Union? Really? REALLY?! And this man wants to become President of the United States?

Stop the world I want off.

It's deja vu all over again.

 

[FyreWulff]

So, Obama should have made the recession dramatically deeper and longer by slashing government spending during it? This is a very odd suggestion.

Also correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Obama also start counting the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in the actual budget instead of hiding them elsewhere like Bush?

 

[Hitokage]

Also correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Obama also start counting the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in the actual budget instead of hiding them elsewhere like Bush?

Indeed.

 

[reilo]

Numbers don't lie, people do.

 

[Jackson50]

Romney Camp Once Again Warns Of ‘Soviet’ Threat

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/romney-soviet-threat-again.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

How quaint.

I don't think you base an entire campaign around it, but you have to keep it in the back of voters minds constantly. I saw a similar tactic (among surrogates) used against Hillary in the 08 primary, where people would constantly reference the fact that we might have a Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton run. The inference was that it was just more of the same tired thinking.

Political shorthand is a devestating tool in Presidential politics. Which is why Nixon/Carter's name still carried so much weight well past their shelflife. Even if invoking Bush's name is not demonstrably effective, it still is important to establish his name as a baseline for a certain type of thinking or shorthand for reckless/inept governing.

I simply don't see any evidence indicating it's as consequential as you posit. First, although a political figure may be unpopular, that's a reflection of circumstances. And as the environ changes, the relevance of the figure diminishes. Further, I think the figure becomes indistinguishable from the party. I'm sure most already associate Bush with the Republicans. So highlighting their similarities is redundant. Perhaps Bush has a unique toxicity independent of Republicans, but I think most people exaggerate its magnitude. And regarding Hillary, I think this is an instance where it's importance is exaggerated. Where Obama highlighted the freshness of his candidacy was highlighting his difference with Clinton on authorizing the use of force in Iraq and other differences on policy. The Bush-Clinton connection was probably ancillary.

Not that I am objecting to employing the strategy. It couldn't hurt to capitalize on Bush's unpopularity.

 

[Drek]

What people have a problem with in regards to Obama's spending is the increase in the DEFICIT, not year over year budget dollars. This is the graph they are referring to:

(*cue "Bush" tax cut talking points*)

1. Notice how bloated 2009 was? That was on a budget passed by George W. Bush. That's the rules of the game. Year one you're entirely reliant on the previous guy's budget.

2. Year two he actually reduced the budget deficit despite a massive pullback in tax revenues. Something roughly analogous to walking on water in the contemporary political climate. Then the mid-term elections happened and the GOP won control of congress.

3. Once the GOP won control of the congress we still wouldn't have been doing too bad, but they then refused to do any real budget work that wasn't 110% their ideal with no willingness to compromise. Then they ran the deficit up even more by playing chicken with the debt ceiling and driving the U.S.'s credit rating down, resulting in greater interest on the debt and greater shortfalls in the annual budget.

Now why exactly would I use some kind of Bush tax cut talking point when the facts completely take apart your shitty argument?

 

[Aaron Strife]

The GOP tax cut bill failed 45-54. They're voting on the Dems' bill now. It only requires a simple majority to pass.

 

[Stinkles]

This is like arguing that Someone who weighs 360 pounds going up to 380 pounds is controlling their weight better than someone who weighs 160 and goes up to 175.

Your brain is like a Clown car with infinite doors.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

Your brain is like a Clown car with infinite doors.

brilliant.

and of course his special brand of bullshit is once again eviscerated, and he cowers away, only popping in again to change the goal posts or spout more nonsense.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Your brain is like a Clown car with infinite doors.

....

.......



Words cannot express how utterly brilliant this is. Holy shit.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Reid's bill passed 51-48

 

[reilo]

Your brain is like a Clown car with infinite doors.

Hahaha.

 

[Kosmo]

....

.......



Words cannot express how utterly brilliant this is. Holy shit.

Infinite clowns would make sense. Infinite doors? Carry on, though, glad you got a laugh out of it.

 

[el retorno]

Reid's bill passed 51-48

And will go nowhere in the house, no?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

And will go nowhere in the house, no?

Correct but it puts Boehner in a particular position to ONCE AGAIN be the leader of a party that is the reason this country edges close to falling over the fiscal cliff.
Shit was MASTERFUL by Harry Reid.

Edit: Also, Kosmo is one of my favorite posters because he always supplies the lolz. He's truly the Michelle Bachman of NeoGAF.

 

[War Peaceman]

Your brain is like a Clown car with infinite doors.

I think Kosmo may need a new tag..

 

[el retorno]

Correct but it puts Boehner in a particular position to ONCE AGAIN be the leader of a party that is the reason this country edges close to falling over the fiscal cliff.
Shit was MASTERFUL by Harry Reid.

I don't really see this as masterful because it won't be spun that way by the media.

It will again be presented as the republican argument vs. democratic argument which are equally valid. Tune in later tonight to hear two heads repeat the same damn talking points we just reported as news.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I don't really see this as masterful because it won't be spun that way by the media.

It will again be presented as the republican argument vs. democratic argument which are equally valid. Tune in later tonight to hear two heads repeat the same damn talking points we just reported as news.

I think the difference here is that the Democratic bill is actually passed legislation by the Senate whereas the GOP bill failed. It's easy to say a bill failed because it was filibustered, here they actually produced something.

Obama's going to be out on the campaign trail saying "The Senate passed a bill to lower tax cuts for middle class families, why can't the House do the same?"

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I don't really see this as masterful because it won't be spun that way by the media.

It will again be presented as the republican argument vs. democratic argument which are equally valid. Tune in later tonight to hear two heads repeat the same damn talking points we just reported as news.

Really? Last year, the public CLEARLY swung against the GOP for holding up increasing the debt limit and it forced the GOP to give in on a few important issues going into 2013. This is a step in the direction to repeat what happened last year except now, we're going into an election.

I think the difference here is that the Democratic bill is actually passed legislation by the Senate whereas the GOP bill failed. It's easy to say a bill failed because it was filibustered, here they actually produced something.

Obama's going to be out on the campaign trail saying "The Senate passed a bill to lower tax cuts for middle class families, why can't the House do the same?"

Bingo.

 

[el retorno]

I think the difference here is that the Democratic bill is actually passed legislation by the Senate whereas the GOP bill failed. It's easy to say a bill failed because it was filibustered, here they actually produced something.

Obama's going to be out on the campaign trail saying "The Senate passed a bill to lower tax cuts for middle class families, why can't the House do the same?"

I just don't see it being effective. This issue is gonna be dealt with in the lame duck or the tax cuts are going to expire.

Really? Last year, the public CLEARLY swung against the GOP for holding up increasing the debt limit and it forced the GOP to give in on a few important issues going into 2013. This is a step in the direction to repeat what happened last year except now, we're going into an election.

This isn't gonna be the same as the debt limit. This is taxes. I know the majority of the public supports raising taxes on the rich but I think the public buys the whole Tax Cuts don't add to the deficit BS. I think its gonna be a tough sell it as a fiscally irresponsible GOP. I'd rather them go with the Romney and the GOP protecting their rich friends at your expense.

The dems are almost always gonna lose the debt debates IMO

 

[NathanMcMahon]

I think Kosmo may need a new tag..

Factually Challenged Clown Car?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I just don't see it being effective. This issue is gonna be dealt with in the lame duck or the tax cuts are going to expire.


This isn't gonna be the same as the debt limit. This is taxes. I know the majority of the public supports raising taxes on the rich but I think the public buys the whole Tax Cuts don't add to the deficit BS.

Except this is one HUGE example that represents the GOP as being anti-middle class, which going into the election will be huge. Include Senator Kyle's statement that Obama needs to stop talking about the middle class and you have a GOLDEN ad.

 

[el retorno]

Except this is one HUGE example that represents the GOP as being anti-middle class, which going into the election will be huge. Include Senator Kyle's statement that Obama needs to stop talking about the middle class and you have a GOLDEN ad.

That's the kind of angle I'd like them to play. I just don't see how you spin this as "fiscally irresponsible".

I know it is. But I don't think the public agrees.

 

[Clevinger]

The GOP tax cut bill failed 45-54. They're voting on the Dems' bill now. It only requires a simple majority to pass.

Why does it only require a simple majority? What is this madness you speak of?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

That's the kind of angle I'd like them to play. I just don't see how you spin this as "fiscally irresponsible".

I know it is. But I don't think the public agrees.

Simple. You lay it out like this:

The GOP would prefer for taxes go up on the poor and middle class if it means that taxes on billionaires go back to where they were under Bill Clinton.

 

[pigeon]

Why does it only require a simple majority? What is this madness you speak of?

Reid and McConnell apparently made a deal to put both bills up for a majority vote. I'm not clear on what McConnell got out of it, since he must've known his bill was DOA. I'm also not clear yet on whether this bill is going to get killed by the blue slip problem or not.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Reid and McConnell apparently made a deal to put both bills up for a majority vote. I'm not clear on what McConnell got out of it, since he must've known his bill was DOA. I'm also not clear yet on whether this bill is going to get killed by the blue slip problem or not.

The House will try to use the blue slip issue to kick their bill back to the Senate but the Dems are banking on the GOP Senate to not want to go on record in an election year to be shown as being more concerned with the top earners than the middle class.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Reid and McConnell apparently made a deal to put both bills up for a majority vote. I'm not clear on what McConnell got out of it, since he must've known his bill was DOA. I'm also not clear yet on whether this bill is going to get killed by the blue slip problem or not.

McConnell did not think Reid had the votes to pass his version either.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

McConnell did not think Reid had the votes to pass his version either.

Yep. Snowe and Scott crossed the aisle.

 

[Averon]

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/dates-locations-formats-set-for-presidential-debates

Dates, Locations, Formats Set For Presidential Debates

- Debate 1: October, 2 in Denver, CO. Will focus on domestic issues, with a moderator asking questions.

- VP Debate: October 11, in Danville, KY. Will be wide-ranging, with a moderator asking questions

- Debate 2: October 16, in Hempstead, NY. A town-hall format, with undecided voters (as screened by Gallup) asking the questions.

- Debate 3: October 22, in Boca Raton, FL. Will focus on foreign policy, with a moderator asking questions.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Such brilliance.

 

[NullPointer]

Such brilliance.

There's enough material out there to make a whole series of those.

Dates, Locations, Formats Set For Presidential Debates[/B]

- Debate 1: October, 2 in Denver, CO. Will focus on domestic issues, with a moderator asking questions.

- VP Debate: October 11, in Danville, KY. Will be wide-ranging, with a moderator asking questions

- Debate 2: October 16, in Hempstead, NY. A town-hall format, with undecided voters (as screened by Gallup) asking the questions.

- Debate 3: October 22, in Boca Raton, FL. Will focus on foreign policy, with a moderator asking questions.

Good. Good.

Soon.

*stocks up on popcorn and bourbon*

 

[Loudninja]

Obama: Looking At You Now, Boehner

With the Senate’s vote, the House Republicans are now the only people left in Washington holding hostage the middle-class tax cuts for 98% of Americans and nearly every small business owner. The last thing a typical middle class family can afford is a $2,200 tax hike at the beginning of next year. It’s time for House Republicans to drop their demand for another $1 trillion giveaway to the wealthiest Americans and give our families and small businesses the financial security and certainty that they need. Our economy isn’t built from the top-down, it’s built from a strong and growing middle class, and that’s who we should be fighting for.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/07/obama_looking_at_you_now_boehner.php?ref=fpblg

 

[Mac_Lane]

Reid really schooled McConnell on this one, delightful.