[luke warm]

PassedOut, on 2012-November-05, 07:15, said:

Bush handed off a final-year deficit of $1.2 trillion, which Obama has cut slightly during his term.

yes, and bush left $10T in debt... obama has slightly cut what? he's added a trillion a year to the deficit (it's now somewhere around $4T) and over 6 trillion to the debt... tell me this... no matter who wins, is there a point or a number (or points or numbers) at which you will say "he has failed" - whoever "he" is?

[mike777]

Agree that for the Rep party to survive it will need to be more than just the party seen as prolife, cut the deficit.


As I have mentioned before would be nice if it again became the party seen as pro freedom point of view on issues.

Of course this runs the risk as being seen as a war party or the party who does not care about people dying in the streets....

[lalldonn]

Lukewarm, of the last 31 polls out of Michigan, 30 of them show Obama leading, the one you mentioned being the exception. Of the last 7 polls out of Michigan (all since 10/31), 6 show Obama leading by between 5% and 8%, the one you mentioned being the exception.

As for national polls that came out Sunday, there were 13 including the cnn poll. 4 showed a tie and 9 showed Obama leading. None showed Romney leading.

I don't know whether to nicely say you are grasping at straws, or meanly say you are cherry picking evidence to hold onto your belief, but I might as well say both since both are true.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2012-November-05, 09:30, said:

well all that goes a long way toward explaining all the (liberal) newspapers and retired admirals/generals endorsing romney, i guess... damn crackers are just too dumb to comprehend your immaculate reasoning

In the original post that prompted this exchange, I noted that you seemed to be getting all of your news from Fox and that this was leading to a very biased view of reality.

You have now responded by posting two of the top talking points from Fox...

I'm not going to state that this is clear evidence that your ability to make a logical argument has declined precipitously, however, it is suggestive...

FWIW, please consider the following two points.

In 2008, Obama won a landslide election. 2012 looks to be a much closer election. If this holds true, how difficult would it be to find eight newspapers who changed their endorsement?

In a similar vein, in recent years, the US military has identified much more strongly with Republicans with Democrats. This trend is much stronger in the upper ranks. If this holds true, how difficult would it be to find 500 retired Admirals and Generals willing to support Romney. (FWIW, I do find this one kind of surprising. Historically, strong efforts have been made to avoid politicizing the military. As I understand matters, actively serving members of the military aren't allowed to comment on these sorts of things.) Anyone know what percentage of the total number of retired generals and admirals this totals?

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2012-November-05, 09:44, said:

yes, and bush left $10T in debt... obama has slightly cut what?

Obama's yearly deficit is down slightly from Bush's final year deficit, so the deficit explosion has already been contained. The national debt, though, will continue to increase until the budget shows a surplus -- like the one handed to Bush by Clinton.

However, you cannot reduce the debt by cutting taxes and increasing military spending as Romney proposes. Instead, the gap between spending and revenues must be closed systematically, as Clinton did and as Obama has started to do.

[mike777]

Grasping at a straw:


538 has it at 86% this morning.



Gallup predicting smaller overall voter turnout% compared to 2004/08.



The Gallup numbers are generally a pretty good predictor of turnout. The 2004 and 2008 elections both had at least a 57 percent turnout (of the voting-age population), while 1996 and 2000 lagged significantly behind (49 percent and 51 percent, respectively).

Political science generally tells us that high turnout favors Democrats, while lower turnout favors Republicans. That’s because more people identify as Democrats than Republicans, and Democratic constituencies are more prone to staying home if they aren’t interested. This is a big reason why Democrats generally spend so much time and money on their ground game.

David Axelrod, a top adviser to President Obama, said Sunday that there was some concern that low turnout spurred by Hurricane Sandy could negatively impact Obama’s reelection chances.


http://www.washingto...rss=rss_polling



The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 49% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns the vote from 48%. Two percent (2%) prefer some other candidate, and one percent (1%) remains undecided.

Rasmussen Reports will conduct our final tracking poll tonight and release the results early Tuesday morning. Later today, we will issue our final swing state polls including Ohio, Virginia and New Hampshire.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on 2012-November-05, 10:00, said:

In the original post that prompted this exchange, I noted that you seemed to be getting all of your news from Fox and that this was leading to a very biased view of reality.

You have now responded by posting two of the top talking points from Fox...

and it still surprises me that you say this, given that my links were from freebeacon.com and the american presidency project... are they spouting fox talking points also?

PassedOut, on 2012-November-05, 10:02, said:

Obama's yearly deficit is down slightly from Bush's final year deficit, so the deficit explosion has already been contained.

wow... so bush, after 8 years, had a $1.2T deficit and obama, after 3+ years, has added $4T to it and he's done better? and bush, after 8 years, added $4T to the debt and obama, after 3+, has added $6T above that, and that *also* is better? i don't blame you for not saying what you'd use as a failure mark, it looks like you'll judge subjectively based on who is in office

check out spending as a percent of gdp and tell me if the picture clears up for you any

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2012-November-05, 10:24, said:

and it still surprises me that you say this, given that my links were from freebeacon.com and the american presidency project... are they spouting fox talking points also?

"Breaking right now on fox news! Over 500 generals and admirals back Mitt Romney"
http://www.godlikepr...sage2037983/pg1

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2012-November-05, 10:24, said:

wow... so bush, after 8 years, had a $1.2T deficit and obama, after 3+ years, has added $4T to it and he's done better?

Bush's highest deficit for a single year, his final year, was $1.2 trillion. Obama's final single-year deficit is lower than that, so he's clearly made progress on the deficit. Romney proposes to reverse that progress.

Really, it should not be a surprise that Obama's four-year total is higher than Bush's final one-year total.

[wyman]

luke warm, on 2012-November-05, 10:24, said:

wow... so bush, after 8 years, had a $1.2T deficit and obama, after 3+ years, has added $4T to it and he's done better?

Obama added $4T to the deficit? I think you are mistaken. Obama has lowered the deficit. When Bush left, it was appx $1.4T (FY 2009), and it is $1.33T (FY 2012) and $901B (FY2013).

And it's the spread of information like this that totally infuriates me during political season. Misinformation actually changes votes. Maybe it's a means to your end, but it's immoral.

Or maybe you don't have a solid understanding of what the word "deficit" means.

Quote

and bush, after 8 years, added $4T to the debt and obama, after 3+, has added $6T above that, and that *also* is better? i don't blame you for not saying what you'd use as a failure mark, it looks like you'll judge subjectively based on who is in office

Rounding, eh? The debt grew by about $5T during Bush's 8 years (~$4.899T according to this article from CBS http://www.cbsnews.c...han-under-bush/).

However, a few points:

1) Take a look at where the debt would be without the Bush tax cuts: (via Ezra Klein's Washington Post blog) http://www.washingto...efore-watching/

I find it really hard to blame Obama for that, though I do put a lot of blame in his court for not getting a budget deal done to undo those tax cuts via Simpson-Bowles (of course, Paul Ryan was ON that commission and voted against its findings, so I don't let the Romney camp off the hook either).

2) Bush left office with a massive deficit that included his tax cuts. The debt increased by nearly 100% during his 8 year term. To do that, you would need roughly an annual deficit that is 9% of the debt. First note that Obama has operated in the ballpark of this in years so far, through an incredible economic downturn. Second note that for FY2013, the requested budget is 901B. Let's say they go over and spend 1.1T, which would be usual. 1.1T is less than 7% of the debt, so at the current rate, he would not be increasing the debt at a rate near what Bush did, percentage-wise.


I am not a huge Obama fan-boy, and I think Romney would make a fine president; he doesn't actually scare me at all. But Paul Ryan does, and the Republican party as a whole does, and that's enough for me to be voting for Obama again. Discourse is fine, of course, but misinformation is really not.

[mike777]

btw keep in mind we dont have a budget and have not for what 4 years?


In any event lets only count spending while in office..not out of office....guys...when you cant change it.

Also note the President is in favor of massive tax cuts and spending a lot of money on the military and is prepared, fully prepared, to go to war if need be in the next year or so with Iran.

He has made it clear that if Iran gets close to even making a nuke..he willgo to war.

He has made it very clear he will kill people with drones and special forces in many countries to fight the war on terror.

[PassedOut]

wyman, on 2012-November-05, 11:20, said:

Obama added $4T to the deficit? I think you are mistaken. Obama has lowered the deficit. When Bush left, it was appx $1.4T (FY 2009), and it is $1.33T (FY 2012) and $901B (FY2013).

And it's the spread of information like this that totally infuriates me during political season. Misinformation actually changes votes. Maybe it's a means to your end, but it's immoral.

I agree. However, only $1.2 trillion of the FY 2009 deficit should be allocated to Bush: The additional stimulus passed in the spring of 2009 belongs to Obama.

I've been in business all of my life and can, I hope, be forgiven for viewing matters from that perspective. Budgets, expenses, revenues, and returns on investment are very real to me, and I loathe the kind of disinformation that we are seeing about these numbers. When I do see unfavorable budgetary numbers, my thoughts go toward strategies for turning those numbers around -- not to denying the numbers. I don't know any successful business person who proceeds differently.

What I am not is a member of a political party, and I don't vote based on political party. I'll be voting for some local republicans this year, even though it's impossible for me to vote for a national republican these days. If an Al Gore presidency had unfolded the way Bush's did, I'd have been just as disturbed. Plenty of democrats assisted Bush in passing those irresponsible tax cuts and in permitting Bush to launch an unjustified war, so it's not all his fault.

But I'm not going to vote for a repeat.

[mike777]

Good news!

Only 48 hours and we can kickoff a new thread for 2016 election and how bad whoever the new current Pres is.

Hillary anyone?

Cant wait for 538 to start putting up odds.

[luke warm]

wyman, on 2012-November-05, 11:20, said:

Rounding, eh? The debt grew by about $5T during Bush's 8 years

deficit by year (in millions)

• 2001/2002 - $420,772 - total debt $6,228,235
  
• 2002/2003 - $554,995 - total debt $6,783,231
  
• 2003/2004 - $595,821 - total debt $7,379,052
  
• 2004/2005 - $553,656 - total debt $7,932,709
  
• 2005/2006 - $574,264 - total debt $8,506,973
  
• 2006/2007 - $500,679 - total debt $9,007,653
  
• 2007/2008 - $1,017,071 - total debt $10,024,724
  
• 2008/2009 - $1,885,104 - total debt $11,909,829
  
• 2009/2010 - $1,651,794 - total debt $13,561,623
  
• 2010/2011 - $1,228,717 - total debt $14,790,340
  
• 2011/2012 - $1,224,790 - total debt $16,015,131

so bush had 2 of 9 years of $1T deficits, and they didn't start until the dems took over the congress (though i won't speculate on whether or not that played any role)... obama has had 4 years in a row, and according to the cbo there is no end in sight...

and the deficit to gdp ratios show another story

Ronald Reagan

• 1981-88 4.2 %
  
• 1982-89 4.2
  
• Average 4.2

George H. W. Bush

• 1989-92 4.0
  
• 1990-93 4.3
  
• Average 4.2

Bill Clinton

• 1993-2000 0.8
  
• 1994-2001 0.1
  
• Average 0.5

George W. Bush

• 2001-08 2.0
  
• 2002-09 3.4
  
• Average 2.7

Barack Obama

• 2009-12 (est) 9.1
  
• 2010-12 8.7
  
• Average 8.9

[Flem72]

All this talk about presidents and the economy makes me tired. Maybe the Consitution should enter the discourse.

Spending originates in Congress. Presidents can only veto. In the Clinton years (the "Clinton" surplus), Repubs controlled the House for the first time in maybe 35-40 years: spending (or lack thereof) bills originate there (yes, really). In the Bush years, Dems ran both houses of Congress; Bush didn't veto enough. In the Obama years, Dems again control both houses, and the debt is a larger share of GDP than at any time in over 50 years (round number, please don't get chippy).

The role of the President is to reinforce, or not, the economic tendencies and goals of the party dominant in Congress.

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2012-November-05, 12:30, said:

so bush had 2 of 9 years of $1T deficits

Bush was only in office for 8 years, although it seemed longer...

The rounding that wyman pointed out was your rounding of $5.68 trillion down to $5 trillion.

[PassedOut]

hrothgar, on 2012-November-05, 09:20, said:

The Republican brand is crap any place outside of the old South. (You know why "Independents" are going for Romney in drives this year? Its because most of them are ex-Republicans who can stand to admit to belonging to that party)
Your primaries consisted of the most pathetic set of whack-a-doodles I've every seen.
Your nominee is about to lose an winnable election.
More and more of your demographic base is getting called home to Jesus.

On the other hand, the rapist bloc is locked in...

[BunnyGo]

y66, on 2012-November-05, 07:56, said:

Wick Allison, former publisher of National Review under William F. Buckley and current publisher of The American Conservative, said it best when he re-affirmed his decision to back Obama: "My questions about Obamacare and my disappointment that we are not already out of Afghanistan are not enough to make me embrace a candidacy that even George W. Bush would have been repelled by—and, having had time to reflect on his own record, perhaps is.”

I was most amused by his use of the past tense for George W. Bush. Is he dead?

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on 2012-November-05, 12:43, said:

Bush was only in office for 8 years, although it seemed longer...

yes i know, but everyone wants to give him 2009, so what the hell - throw that one in also

[luke warm]

lalldonn, on 2012-November-05, 09:58, said:

I don't know whether to nicely say you are grasping at straws, or meanly say you are cherry picking evidence to hold onto your belief, but I might as well say both since both are true.

i'd say i'm grasping at straws... but if i am, i'm not the only one... even george will, who is hardly a conservative harpy, picked romney by 300+ EVs... as i said, i'll watch till VA is called to see if it's worth staying up for