the british bulldog!
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
the british bulldog!
Avon Barksdale
Member
Good to see that the rebranding phase is going over so well!
PhoenixDark
Banned
Doubling down on stupid. Only Gingrich is sensible, and that depends on which version of Gingrich you get for that particular day.
Seriously, idealogically there is no diversity there, it'll be all far right nonsense plus Romney's sorry shit.
Black Mamba
Member
Not really a doubling down. I think this is like the 5th time now. More "doubling down" of this stupidity than Laker season restarts.
If not for Palin, I wouldn't be able to fault the conference organizers here. The speakers do basically represent the diversity that actually exists within the Republican party.
Paul is a fake libertarian, Gingrich is the corrupt lifer, West is the ex-military nut, Santorum is the social conservative, Lapierre is guns, and Romney is the businessman.
Shadow Hog
Member
What's SomethingAwful got to do with anything?
PhoenixDark
Banned
They certainly form like Voltron. It's like the Wu Tang of stupidity.
Sad, sad, sad. Why is Romney going to this? Does he still have stuff to say?
Black Mamba
Member
Should have replaced Romney with Paul Ryan. They need a faux numbers guy in there and Mittens is out of their favor, anyway.
speculawyer
Member
The fresh new faces of conservatism!
Wow. At least 5 of those are totally toxic and could never get elected to national office except from deep red territory.
1 gun manufacture lobbyist
3 people that lost their most recent elections (West, Santorum, Romney)
2 people that quit office somewhat in shame (Palin & Newt)
1 person that actually holds office. In deep red territory.
RustyNails
Member
I hope Allen West runs in 2016.
Only 5 are toxic? I count 7.
Wait, who are the two that aren't?
? not sure i see what youre talking about there, he's just RTing crazy people.
Yea someone retweeted him from months ago, I didn't notice the date.
speculawyer
Member
I'll let people pick their own. But I'd say Rand Paul (because he does hold office) and Mitt Romney (who lost but is not a total nut).
Palin couldn't even win in Alaska these days. Santorum, West, and New are just LOL.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I'd love for Rand to get the nomination. He's the perfect candidate to ensure republicans face a Goldwater-esque electoral implosion that the true believers won't be able to spin or dismiss; I suppose Santorum would fit the bill too, but he has some redeeming qualities (support for manufacturing) whereas Paul has none from a domestic perspective. He wouldn't water down his bullshit, he was born to fall on his sword.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Just the fact that Allen West, an extreme right-wing conspiracy nut Tea Partier that couldn't get past his first term in the House, is a speaker says all you need to know about how the GOP is going about "rebranding."
He announced on Fox News last weekend that he's seriously considering running as a Libertarian. Which is even better, because it's just going to split the vote.
the only republicans left, would have to compromise their ideologies a metric shit ton. after the karl rove meltdown, i really think that the bubble wasnt so much burst, as it was simply put on display. meaning a bubble that big doesnt pop, maybe just leaks out air until flat, hopefully..
Fenderputty
Banned
So if sequestration goes through, will democrats regret only pushing it off during cliff negotiations? This is probably like asking if Harry Reid regrets not forcing filibuster reform after this recent Hagel mess.
Black Mamba
Member
No. It's much harder to get tax hikes than spending increases. And it would have hurt the economy worse.
The GOP will still be blamed for the sequester because they refuse on closing tax loopholes which is something most people want.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Not buying it. It could easily cause a recession, and presidents tend to get blamed for those.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Black Mamba
Member
BTW, The GOP is basically in the minority on every national issue according to the recent Pew Poll released today:
http://www.people-press.org/2013/02...uck-four-in-ten-say-let-the-sequester-happen/
Fenderputty
Banned
I hope you're right. The whole reason the fiscal cliff was so perilous was because of the spending cuts. Getting tax increases to simply push the perilous cuts down the street two months seems like a hollow win to me. I would rather no tax increases and spending increases if I had the choice. This is obviously if I were given a choice between that and increased taxes and spending cuts.
Black Mamba
Member
The GOP won't be able to sit on their ass for long with $50 billion per year in defense spending cuts. They'll move at some point in the near future. May take a little time but it will happen.
Ideally, they will agree to spending cuts down the road which never materialize.
Mrs. Manky
Banned
You have to have Palin. Most sentai teams have one girl.
Damn, Huntsman wants to run again.
Huntsman scares me in a way. Good thing the Republican base is far too dumb to let him win a primary.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
He won't run as a Republican again. As an independent, perhaps, he certainly has the money
It's too bad Utah's Senate seats are pretty much filled unless Orrin Hatch dies - if Huntsman is still as popular there as he was when he was Governor he could win easily and work to change the party that way
Fenderputty
Banned
He would definitely soak up some of those, "I'm socially liberal but fiscally conservative" folks.
Wow, it's like a right wing who's who of failure.
So I was watching Morning Joe today and Scarborough was once again pushing his deficit bullshit but was getting beat back by (surprisingly) Steny Hoyer. Hoyer was doing a pretty good job, and even called out all the deficits created under Reagan that no Republican seems to give a shit about. Scarborough then did some calculations on-air (seriously) and said that the even adjusting for inflation, Reagan's deficits were never as high as Obama's.
Now this is getting pretty deep in the economic weeds here, but it's hard for me to believe that's the case. Reagan after all, tripled the DEBT by the time he was finished in office, which I think would be a much better way to compare the two. Obama's only increased it by 50% so far, and may just end up doubling it by the end of his term, which would still be quite short of what Reagan did.
Of course, I'm not one of them economyologists with their fancy college DEE-grees, but am I wrong on my criticisms?
Now this is getting pretty deep in the economic weeds here, but it's hard for me to believe that's the case. Reagan after all, tripled the DEBT by the time he was finished in office, which I think would be a much better way to compare the two. Obama's only increased it by 50% so far, and may just end up doubling it by the end of his term, which would still be quite short of what Reagan did.
Of course, I'm not one of them economyologists with their fancy college DEE-grees, but am I wrong on my criticisms?
The best thing about this graph is the immigration bit, since, once again, Obama's plan and Rubio's plan are the same! This is a complete no-win issue for the GOP at this point -- anything good that happens will be Obama's to take credit for, anything bad will be assumed to be Republican obstructionism. Politics, everybody!
Yes, I think so. Why is the absolute amount of debt outstanding when a president takes office relevant to gauging his performance? Interest payments, I guess, but those aren't a huge part of what's going on, and anyway interest rates have been extremely low as long as Obama's been in office.
If a president took office with $1 of debt, and added $10 to that over 8 years in office, that would be a huge percentage increase, but no one should care about that.
Also inflation may matter here. Do we care about debt or debt as a percentage of GDP? Looks to me like Debt-to-GDP went from about 35% to 55% under Reagan. That difference - 20% - seems to me to be the best number to use in comparisons, to the extent that such comparisons can be meaningful. Maybe Debt-to-Potential-GDP would be better?
Disclaimer: Not an endorsement of short-term deficit reduction.
empty vessel
Member
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
See Table 1.2
Reagan's deficits as percent of GDP:
1982 -4.0
1983 -6.0
1984 -4.8
1985 -5.1
1986 -5.0
1987 -3.2
1988 -3.1
Obama's deficits as percent of GDP:
2010 -9.0
2011 -8.7
But I think this a silly thing to compare anyway given that (1) presidents have no real control over their budgets and (2) the larger deficit number is most likely to be the one better for society. Indeed, Obama's deficit numbers are far too low given the circumstances of the time.
We shouldn't get into arguments with Republicans about which party is better at keeping deficits low, we should get into arguments with Republicans about which party is better at keeping them appropriately high.
ClassyPenguin
Banned
Add to that rising medical costs which constitutes a lot of that spending.
Well, I wasn't trying to say that debt is related to once performance, and I do think that the breakdown of debt is very important, but I was simply trying to make a proper apples to apples comparison on total debt between Reagan and Obama.
Hmm, seems those numbers make sense considering Reagan had a faster growing economy than Obama. But of course that's debt as a percentage of GDP. My original question was whether it's a better measure to use the total amount of debt based on how much debt the president originally started with?
speculawyer
Member
Oh just let it start happening. Let people start to suffer and let the GOP take the blame. I'm tired of this endless can-kicking. Let the implosion begin.
It is funny how the crazy GOP doesn't even agree with their 'cut spending only' view.
empty vessel
Member
Yeah, I know, but I was addressing the correctness of Scarborough's assertion that Reagan's deficits were never as high as Obama's even adjusting for inflation. Of course, I had to modify it to deficits as a percent of GDP because Scarborough is a fucking moron. You can't compare deficit amounts across time as raw numbers (even taking inflation into account), because they have meaning only in connection with the real economy, which is not static but grows over time. If you could, then one could say that Obama's deficit in constant 1995 dollars ($1,153 billion) was greater than Roosevelt's deficit in constant 1995 dollars during WWII ($531 billion). That's true, but meaningless. Roosevelt's deficit as a percent of GDP was at its height three times Obama's.
And American society was rewarded with unparalleled economic prosperity for it!
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
The country certainly has a lot more fat old people than in 1981, and they're getting fatter and older. So if I were to argue about debt during the Obama presidency versus that during the Reagan presidency, I would say "fat old people" and leave it at that.
hydragonwarrior
Member
Awesome.
Black Mamba
Member
Looking at deficits is a nonsequitor.
Reagan's deficits were created by a direct increase is gov't spending and reduction in taxes.
Obama's deficits are the result of reduced tax revenues from a depressed economy he inherited and mostly an increase in indirect spending (auto welfare triggers and aging population).
In fact, Obama has barely contributed to the deficit at all.
If we're going to assume deficits matter then we at least have to recognize what's driving them.
Reagan's deficits were created by a direct increase is gov't spending and reduction in taxes.
Obama's deficits are the result of reduced tax revenues from a depressed economy he inherited and mostly an increase in indirect spending (auto welfare triggers and aging population).
In fact, Obama has barely contributed to the deficit at all.
If we're going to assume deficits matter then we at least have to recognize what's driving them.
Don't think this has been posted. 4 Things Politicians Will Never Understand About Poor People;
http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-things-politicians-will-never-understand-about-poor-people/
http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-things-politicians-will-never-understand-about-poor-people/
empty vessel
Member
Agreed. The stimulus is the only new spending I can think of that Obama has presided over. And that was necessitated by the economy. Of course, it's a bad thing that Obama has not contributed to the deficit beyond that, given its utter insufficiency to restore economic activity.
- Status