U.S. 2012 Election

[vonGarvin]

If  were eligible to vote in the US election:

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think we are giving President Obama too much credit and too much blame for the bailouts and the subsequent stagnation.

Obama had little to do with creating the crisis, beyond advocating many of the policies that precipitated it; he had less to so with the solutions, such as they have been.

The record, as I understand it - and my perception may be wrong, is that both the Bush White House and the Democratic Congress opposed bailouts and were looking for almost anything to avoid bailouts. It was Henry Paulson and, mainly Ben Bernanke, an expert on the causes and effects of the Great Depression, who, literally, frightened the living shit out of Bush, Pelozi, Dodd, Frank et al; frightened them into shoveling money, lots of money, heaps of money and then even more money into anything and everything that looked like it might restore credit. Obama just carried on, following the Bernanke plan, because Bernanke is the smartest guy in the room - by a long shot. Political Washington, led by Obama, is about 99% intellectual and moral lightweights - and that includes Obama, in both categories; he's no FDR, he's certainly not a Truman nor an Eisenhower nor even a Carter or Reagan; he's probably on an intellectual and moral level with Kennedy, which is to say down near the bottom of the heap.

 

[Redeye]

I think we are giving President Obama too much credit and too much blame for the bailouts and the subsequent stagnation.

Obama had little to do with creating the crisis, beyond advocating many of the policies that precipitated it; he had less to so with the solutions, such as they have been.

The record, as I understand it - and my perception may be wrong, is that both the Bush White House and the Democratic Congress opposed bailouts and were looking for almost anything to avoid bailouts. It was Henry Paulson and, mainly Ben Bernanke, an expert on the causes and effects of the Great Depression, who, literally, frightened the living crap out of Bush, Pelozi, Dodd, Frank et al; frightened them into shoveling money, lots of money, heaps of money and then even more money into anything and everything that looked like it might restore credit. Obama just carried on, following the Bernanke plan, because Bernanke is the smartest guy in the room - by a long shot. Political Washington, led by Obama, is about 99% intellectual and moral lightweights - and that includes Obama, in both categories; he's no FDR, he's certainly not a Truman nor an Eisenhower nor even a Carter or Reagan; he's probably on an intellectual and moral level with Kennedy, which is to say down near the bottom of the heap.

If you're referring to TARP, you can't give him any credit or blame for it. It happened before he was elected.

 

[Edward Campbell]

If you're referring to TARP, you can't give him any credit or blame for it. It happened before he was elected.

I'm talking about everything, TARP, the auto sector bailouts, the fumbled recovery, no budgets, and, and, and ... Obama is a lightweight but so are almost all his Washington colleagues and the few who aren't are hamstrung by the system, a system which Obama likes because it serves his partisan political purposes even as it damages his country and the American people. He's not the worst US president (think e.g. Harding and Buchanan), he's just a well below average one.

 

[Haletown]

TARP was Bush

This notion that Obama bailed out/saved the US auto industry is DNC propaganda.

Honda didn't need bailing out.
Ford didn't need bailing out.
Hyundai didn't need bailing out.
Toyota didn't need bailing out.
Mazda didn't need bailing out.

Obama used tax payer funds to bail out the UAW pension fund - and in the process screwed over the GM bond holders - because he owed the UAW and their Big Brother AFL CIO buddies for funding so much of his election.

GM should have been chapter 11'd but his UAW buds wouldn't have walked away with trunks full of cash.

 

[a_majoor]

More on how things look on the ground:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/zito/s_781090.html#

Pennsylvania tall order for Obama
By Salena Zito
PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, February 12, 2012

During a drive between the Mon Valley towns of McKeesport and Elizabeth, a man named Ray was overheard calling into a local radio station to talk about the subject of the hour: November's presidential election.

The first thing he said is that he is a Democrat who voted for Barack Obama in 2008. Pressed by the talk-show host, he said he would not vote for Obama this time.

The rest of Ray's answer was not unique or remarkable: Yes, he is a union member. Yes, he wanted Obama to succeed. And, yes, he is very disappointed after giving the president more than enough chances to prove he can lead.

Ray said he had finally given up.

It is a story heard over and over across the country, one that began not long after Obama took office in 2009 and followed a series of heavy-handed moves such as appointing policy "czars" to avoid Senate confirmation fights and a lack of transparency with the press and the public (a list too long to elaborate) despite vows to the contrary.

Stimulus signs that dotted highways after a trillion-dollar federal spending spree became signs to mock when the economy failed to improve -- and guys like Ray began to detach.

Following the messy passage of Obama's health-care bill in 2010, the disconnect between him and Americans escalated -- evidenced by a massive sweep of Democrats from state legislatures, governors' offices and the U.S. House of Representatives.

Obama will find no redemption with Pennsylvania Democrats such as Ray. Yet that does not necessarily mean that, come January, he will not be sworn in again.

The data from a yearlong measure of his approval rating, conducted by Gallup in Pennsylvania, aren't promising: 45 percent approve of his performance, 48 percent disapprove.

While Obama campaigners salivate over the primary battle among Republicans Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul, they fail to realize that the GOP's family feud will heal more easily than did Democrats' in 2008.

Independents and Jacksonian Democrats who supported Hillary Clinton grudgingly came over to Obama after their primaries but never felt he was their guy; they were bruised by his treatment of their hero, Bill Clinton, and Hillary.

Back then, Hillary's fatal problem was simple: She couldn't hit hard on Obama's experience and qualifications, or question how he would fulfill his lofty promises -- or even request something as routine as the release of his college records.

Why? Because the disciplined, brilliantly manipulative Obama team and an adoring press would have cried "Racism!"

Those wounds have not healed among Democrats who feel they did not receive in Obama what they would have received in Hillary.

Obama needs Pennsylvania to win re-election. Yet his Electoral College calculus is complicated by his failure to poll well among Jacksonian voters (mostly rural or blue-collar whites) and worsened by his mandate that religious institutions such as Catholic hospitals -- whose objections he sought to mollify on Friday -- provide contraception to employees.

Such government intervention does not sit well with many voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio and other critical, Catholic-rich Midwestern states. Catholic Democrats may lean left on social-justice issues -- but don't try to tell their priests, parishes or hospitals what to do about contraception and abortion.

Even the class-based populist attacks that Obama emphasizes in his political rhetoric, traditionally thought to appeal to Jacksonian white voters, are falling on deaf ears this time around. He is polling the worst with those very voters -- and his rhetoric may repel the professional white voters with whom he has always done especially well.

As the election draws nearer, Pennsylvania no doubt will be the key to the political world. Its microcosm of voters -- ranging from rich-gentry whites who shifted to Obama in 2008, to somewhat more downscale Jacksonian whites who shifted to Republicans in 2010 -- will be at the center of attention.

For Obama to win here, his coalition will need to maximize the minority vote, keep single women and the youth vote firmly in his corner, eke out a win with gentry whites, split the independent vote and hold down the losses among Jacksonian whites.

That is going to be a problem for him, with the loss of the Rays in this state.

Salena Zito can be reached at szito@tribweb.com or 412-320-7879.

Read more: Pennsylvania tall order for Obama - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/zito/print_781090.html#ixzz1mJVkdpYE

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

HuffPo isn't the source I'm citing. It's the source of the surface quoted stat, which I then provided the sources for, in detail. When you can refute them all (and they use a vast swath of surveys and research studies), come on back.

This survey indicates that a lot of catholics dont actually go to church, and that a lot of catholics use birth control.  One could interpolate that a good percentage of those surveyed are catholic, as in:

Person 1- What is your religion?
Person 2- uhhhhhhh, catholic I guess.

ie- they are catholic but dont actually attend church.  Either way, the survey, from what I read, doesn't state what % of those surveyed are actually fully practicing catholics.

Regardless, it doesn't matter because it doesn't really address the original idea that the problem with the whole thing is that it is forcing an independent organization, with it's own set of ideals, to submit to the state.  So what if a catholic hospital doesn't want to issue birth control? If you work there, there are other options for getting it, and I would hazard to guess that anyone working in this environment was well aware of this prior to accepting the job.  By accepting, therin, they  accepted that they would not receive birth control.  Soooo, I guess if you want to work in a catholic hospital and want birth control, go buy it yourself... or condoms.... or whatever. 

Why contraceptive coverage is mandated is beyond me anyways... in the US, Canada, or wherever.  That's a personal choice that should be made, and paid for, by the person, not the state.

You are quite right that the POTUS cannot put forward legislation.  Therein, if he cannot actually make laws, unless through an executive order. 

In spite of the examples you site, including gays in the military, the United States is not existentially different than it was 4 years ago.  The war in Iraq has ended, though it likely would have ended had McCain won too due to public opinion.  Guantanamo is still open, A-Stan is still ongoing, Iran/N Korea remain threats (though marginal at best), and the US is $4 trillion more in debt... THAT is all Obama, as the president he proposes the budget.  So, those children with medical coverage will now get to bear the burden of the incredible debt load that they are left with.

Obama will likely win, I agree.  Though he is a flip flopper (once said marriage was between a man and woman, uses his religion when it's convenient, etc) and a C+ president at best, his opponents seem willing to let him take 4 more.  Beating the competition isn't always an indication that what you've done is actually good.... the US did re-elect Bush after all. 

On a final note- please explain economics to me... my MBA and I could use a refresher

 

[Infanteer]

In spite of the examples you site, including gays in the military, the United States is not existentially different than it was 4 years ago.  The war in Iraq has ended, though it likely would have ended had McCain won too due to public opinion.  Guantanamo is still open, A-Stan is still ongoing, Iran/N Korea remain threats (though marginal at best), and the US is $4 trillion more in debt... THAT is all Obama, as the president he proposes the budget.  So, those children with medical coverage will now get to bear the burden of the incredible debt load that they are left with.

Obama will likely win, I agree.  Though he is a flip flopper (once said marriage was between a man and woman, uses his religion when it's convenient, etc) and a C+ president at best, his opponents seem willing to let him take 4 more.  Beating the competition isn't always an indication that what you've done is actually good.... the US did re-elect Bush after all. 

On a final note- please explain economics to me... my MBA and I could use a refresher

Very good summary Bird Gunner45; probably a pretty lucid sitrep on things.

 

[cupper]

Romney may not have things as locked up as it is being portrayed.

First heard this story on the Rachael Maddow show last week, when she was interviewing one of Ron Paul's campaign managers.

It seems that Paul's plan of focusing caucus states may have a more nuanced aspect than people realized. Based on the way the caucuses work, they have a straw poll to select the candidate, followed by votes to select the actual delegates that will go to the national convention.

What has been happening typically is that after the vote for the candidate has been made, most people leave. Then those that remain will select the actual delegates. Ron Paul's supporters don't leave. They stay and circulate lists of names of Paul supporters and push to get their people selected as the delegates.

And the Paul campaign manager said that that was exactly what the were doing. And it was clear to everyone involved within the state GOP organization.

Today I read this in the Washington Post about the Maine Caucuses on Saturday. It clearly spells out what is happening, and the results may not be as clear cut as they are being made out. Romney's wins might not be wins after all. Although the Maine delgate selection results were thrown out, so sometimes it doesn't work as intended.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/maine-caucuses-provide-a-window-into-ron-paul-delegate-strategy/2012/02/12/gIQARNbC9Q_blog.html#pagebreak

 

[Redeye]

This survey indicates that a lot of catholics dont actually go to church, and that a lot of catholics use birth control.  One could interpolate that a good percentage of those surveyed are catholic, as in:

Person 1- What is your religion?
Person 2- uhhhhhhh, catholic I guess.

ie- they are catholic but dont actually attend church.  Either way, the survey, from what I read, doesn't state what % of those surveyed are actually fully practicing catholics.

What's the relevance of that? If you're going to surmise that some proportion of them are what I think they now call "cafeteria Catholics" you're actually further undermining the argument that it's a big problem. I didn't go into the details of how the persons surveyed were found. I could, but I'm not really that worried about it. I'm sure the survey report will cover that if you're interested.

Regardless, it doesn't matter because it doesn't really address the original idea that the problem with the whole thing is that it is forcing an independent organization, with it's own set of ideals, to submit to the state.  So what if a catholic hospital doesn't want to issue birth control? If you work there, there are other options for getting it, and I would hazard to guess that anyone working in this environment was well aware of this prior to accepting the job.  By accepting, therin, they  accepted that they would not receive birth control.  Soooo, I guess if you want to work in a catholic hospital and want birth control, go buy it yourself... or condoms.... or whatever. 

Oddly enough, a big chunk of Catholic hospitals and universities already covered birth control. So to them the point seems rather moot. The entire argument seems to be given that there whole thing seems more or less settled.

Why contraceptive coverage is mandated is beyond me anyways... in the US, Canada, or wherever.  That's a personal choice that should be made, and paid for, by the person, not the state.

I'd venture to guess that it's a policy decision that unplanned pregnancies are not in the interest in the state. It's an almost universal decision anyhow.

In spite of the examples you site, including gays in the military, the United States is not existentially different than it was 4 years ago.  The war in Iraq has ended, though it likely would have ended had McCain won too due to public opinion.  Guantanamo is still open, A-Stan is still ongoing, Iran/N Korea remain threats (though marginal at best), and the US is $4 trillion more in debt... THAT is all Obama, as the president he proposes the budget.  So, those children with medical coverage will now get to bear the burden of the incredible debt load that they are left with.

I'll go one better and say President Obama doesn't really deserve any credit for the end of Iraq, because the wheels for that were already in motion before he was elected. There's talk now that an accelerated withdrawal from Afghanistan is something of interest, I wonder how assessments of how successful the training of the ANSF is will influence that. I'm about to head over on Op ATTENTION and I'll be interested to see what's been accomplished by Roto 0 and what we'll manage to accomplish. Gitmo pisses off a lot of his base, I understand the problem though - they need some way to dispose of those incarcerated there. They essentially created themselves a big mess that isn't easy to get out of.

North Korea is too broke to be a threat, in fact, the biggest threat of it would be its collapse and how China and South Korea would react. Neither wants the burden of a massive stream of refugees, I suspect that's the reason China props them up and ROK tolerates their antics. Iran isn't much of a threat, but the bluster from the right about them (including the absolutely insane idea of military action against them) is like poking a bear. It's rich to hear a party that goes on about the nation's balance sheet talk about launching yet another war when they didn't pay for their last two.

To suggest that that massive national debt is the product of one single president is frankly ludicrous. The USA has lived beyond its means for a long time, and it's a failure of the whole system of governance there that they don't seem to be able to make much headway on the problem. Both sides of the aisle bear responsibility for that. When the GOP's approach is the failed idea of just handing out more tax cuts, and the Democrats aren't willing to talk about entitlements, it's hard to make any headway. Neither side is likely to make the first move, either. I don't know what the easy solution to that is, there really isn't one I suspect.

Obama will likely win, I agree.  Though he is a flip flopper (once said marriage was between a man and woman, uses his religion when it's convenient, etc) and a C+ president at best, his opponents seem willing to let him take 4 more.  Beating the competition isn't always an indication that what you've done is actually good.... the US did re-elect Bush after all. 

When did he flip flop on marriage? He's never said anything but that - he just doesn't think it's worth fighting over, and perhaps accepts that marriage equality is to some degree inevitable. As for religion, it's funny that he was attacked about the preacher of the Christian church he attended during the Democratic primary, but then after elected, the "Sekrit Kenyan Muslim Marxist" nonsense started up from the tinfoil hat fringe of the right. It's unfortunate that his religious inclinations are an issue at all. Likewise, it's sure to come up if Romney is nominated that he's a Mormon, and Santorum may well get attacked for being a Catholic, as happened to JFK. What one believes in that sense should be their own business. C+ is a fair assessment. I doubt anyone could have done much better with the state of affairs currently. As I've said repeatedly, what will really matter is the Congressional elections. I suspect a lot of incumbents will be looking for new jobs in 2013, I'm not sure what the composition will be, but that will determine what President Obama's next term looks like.

On a final note- please explain economics to me... my MBA and I could use a refresher

You weren't the one who didn't understand the multiplier. Out of respect, I'll make no comment on my opinion of the MBA. I'm sure you've seen the FedEx commercial. They do vary wildly in quality, though, so I'll make no judgements.

 

[cupper]

There are plenty of errors and inconsistencies in both of your arguments. I'll save further derailment and not point them out.

 

[Brad Sallows]

TARP was not a particularly bad program, if you look at the net fiscal balance.  The problem with TARP is that having served its purpose, it was just too nice a cashbox to be shut down.  ARRA was a cluster.  Too much money was spent padding out civil service payroll shortfalls and not enough on actual GNP-enhancing programs.  A payroll pave-over is OK if the pothole is small; it turned out the pothole is too damn big.

 

[cupper]

Romney in a death spiral?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/13/a-romney-death-spiral.html

A friend notes Romney's declining appeal to moderates in recent polls:

A month ago, 40% of independents said they would back Obama over Romney — today 51% say they would, while the number expressing support for Romney has slipped from 50% to 42%.

Over the course of the campaign, Romney’s image among independent voters has suffered substantially. Most notably, the number who believe he is honest and trustworthy has fallen from 53% to 41%, while the number who say he is not has risen from 32% to 45%.

This number is the most troubling (and confusing) number for GOP prospects in the upcoming election. The base doesn't like Romney, and his only attraction was that he appeals to moderate voters that swing during general elections. So what now?

Or Romney the Conservative Figurehead

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/13/grover-norquist-speech-cpac.html

The most quoted speech at CPAC this year was Mitt Romney's, but my vote for the most significant goes to Grover Norquist's. In his charmingly blunt way, Norquist articulated out loud a case for Mitt Romney that you hear only whispered by other major conservative leaders.

They have reconciled themselves to a Romney candidacy because they see Romney as essentially a weak and passive president who will concede leadership to congressional conservatives:

All we have to do is replace Obama. ...  We are not auditioning for fearless leader. We don't need a president to tell us in what direction to go. We know what direction to go. We want the Ryan budget. ... We just need a president to sign this stuff. We don't need someone to think it up or design it. The leadership now for the modern conservative movement for the next 20 years will be coming out of the House and the Senate.

The requirement for president?

Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president of the United States. This is a change for Republicans: the House and Senate doing the work with the president signing bills. His job is to be captain of the team, to sign the legislation that has already been prepared.

This is not a very complimentary assessment of Romney's leadership. It's also not a very realistic political program: congressional Republicans have a disapproval rating of about 75%. If Americans get the idea that a vote for Romney is a vote for the Ryan plan, Romney is more or less doomed.

To date, sad to say, Romney has worked hard to confirm this image of weakness.

Nobody wants a president who acts as the passive instrument of even generally popular groups like labor unions. (Did you know that—despite decades of declining popularity—unions still have an approval rating of 52%? I didn't until I looked it up.)

But a candidate who appeases the most disliked people in national politics? That guy will command neither public affection nor respect.

Mitt Romney badly needs his Sister Souljah moment. Instead, he's running as Jim DeMint's doormat.

 

[Redeye]

TARP was not a particularly bad program, if you look at the net fiscal balance.  The problem with TARP is that having served its purpose, it was just too nice a cashbox to be shut down.  ARRA was a cluster.  Too much money was spent padding out civil service payroll shortfalls and not enough on actual GNP-enhancing programs.  A payroll pave-over is OK if the pothole is small; it turned out the pothole is too damn big.

TARP was based on a strategy that had worked in the past, in Sweden. It was projected to break even, or even possibly be net-positive. However, it creates a moral hazard problem potentially without some manner of reform to prevent the same problems happening again. ARRA you're bang on about. Conceptually the idea of a stimulus can work - IF the money is spent on things that are ultimately useful to enhancing productivity and setting conditions for future, sustainable growth. Plugging budget holes won't do that.

The US has a lot of crumbling infrastructure, the rebuilding of which (at a cost of something like $3.5bil) could be a huge trigger for growth. However, I don't think the GOP would go for it, and I don't think the Dems have the stomach to even present it as an idea. And they'd all be right to be skeptical of how to ensure it's used to good effect.

 

[Redeye]

Romney in a death spiral?

Or Romney the Conservative Figurehead

As it's frequently joked about, which Romney?

The progressive Republican Romney? Or the "severely conservative" Romney?

 

[cupper]

TARP was not a particularly bad program, if you look at the net fiscal balance.  The problem with TARP is that having served its purpose, it was just too nice a cashbox to be shut down.  ARRA was a cluster.  Too much money was spent padding out civil service payroll shortfalls and not enough on actual GNP-enhancing programs.  A payroll pave-over is OK if the pothole is small; it turned out the pothole is too damn big.

Don't forget: TARP was part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and The Economic Stimulus Act were two other measures brought in at the same time. But they were 3 distinct and separate pieces of legislation. Unfortunately everyone lumps them all into one pile.

They all had good points and bad points. But I'd agree that TARP was the most successful of all the measures taken.

Agreed, ARRA was a clusterflop. Too little money put into infrastructure, and everyone expected instant results from a process that takes many months or years to realize results. The money put into saving education and public safety jobs could be argued as having saved many jobs and prevented higher unemployment numbers, but in reality may have only delayed the inevitable.

The Stimulus itself was nice for the average taxpayer, but as many pointed out when they brought it in, most of the money doled out would end up either in savings, or paying down personal debt, not going back into the economy.

But the biggest point that many miss is that this all was put in place before the 2008 election. However through the revisionist looking glass of the anti-Obama cohort, He carries all of the blame and none of the credit.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Don't forget: TARP was part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and The Economic Stimulus Act were two other measures brought in at the same time. But they were 3 distinct and separate pieces of legislation. Unfortunately everyone lumps them all into one pile.

They all had good points and bad points. But I'd agree that TARP was the most successful of all the measures taken.

Agreed, ARRA was a clusterflop. Too little money put into infrastructure, and everyone expected instant results from a process that takes many months or years to realize results. The money put into saving education and public safety jobs could be argued as having saved many jobs and prevented higher unemployment numbers, but in reality may have only delayed the inevitable.

The Stimulus itself was nice for the average taxpayer, but as many pointed out when they brought it in, most of the money doled out would end up either in savings, or paying down personal debt, not going back into the economy.

But the biggest point that many miss is that this all was put in place before the 2008 election. However through the revisionist looking glass of the anti-Obama cohort, He carries all of the blame and none of the credit.

Which is why I said, up near the top of this page, 'I think we are giving President Obama too much credit and too much blame for the bailouts and the subsequent stagnation" and 'Obama just carried on, following the Bernanke plan."

 

[Haletown]

Let's give Obama credit where credit his due him . . . .  in his own numbers.

"Adding all of this up, deficit spending during Obama’s four years in the White House (based on his own figures) will be an estimated $5.170 trillion — or $5,170,000,000,000.00."



He'll be bragging about this accomplishment on the election trial, right ? 

Because he said in his inaugural address that in addition to healing the planet and  stopping the rise of the oceans, he would cut the deficit in half.  Maybe arithmetic is not his strength.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/painful-cost-obama_629745.html

 

[Brad Sallows]

"However through the revisionist looking glass of the anti-Obama cohort, He carries all of the blame and none of the credit."

Think of it as a counterweight to the pro-Obama cohort, which has yet to admit any mistakes after 3 years and routinely passes the blame.  We can teach 18 year-olds to seek and accept responsibility, but a middle-aged man with an advanced degree from a prestigious university and his counsellors and enablers of often superior pedigree can not find it in themselves to do so with arguably the most prestigious and powerful appointment in the non-religious world.

 

[cupper]

Which is why I said, up near the top of this page, 'I think we are giving President Obama too much credit and too much blame for the bailouts and the subsequent stagnation" and 'Obama just carried on, following the Bernanke plan."

Your present self excepted of course. ;D

I did note that your previous post were a rational light in a static filled darkness that we had spiraled into. :nod: