Thursday, 24 May 2012 HARD TO FIGHT FACTS quote [ Obama did not go on federal spending binge. Pace of increase now lowest it has been in decades ] [politics] [by 0000000000@2:46amGMT] [+9 Funny]

mechanical contrivance said @ 2:52am GMT on 24th May [Score:3] Facts don't matter.

incpenners said @ 4:04am GMT on 24th May Facts! Reminds me of the Groucho Marx line, 'Who you gonna believe, me? Or your lyin' eyes?' Obama is toast because no one really believes this shit. If you haven't passed or been held to a budget in three years, as is the case with Obama and the Senate, you can pretty much say whatever you want about the spending because there are no real numbers to compare it to. WSJ Best of the Web points out today The less obvious but more pertinent objection is hinted at in this paraphrase of Obama's I-inherited-this-mess mantra: "Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations." That would be the Troubled Asset Relief Program, enacted in October 2008. It accounted for much of the enormous spending increase (to $3.52 trillion from $2.98 trillion, or 17.9%) in fiscal 2009. Thereafter the rate of change was much smaller: Spending fell 1.8% in 2010, rose 4.3% in 2011, and is expected to rise 0.7% in 2012 and fall 1.3% in 2013. But TARP was a one-off, a temporary response to an emergency. By itself, it would have caused a bump in spending--that is, a sharp increase in 2009, followed by a sharp decrease in 2010. As James Pethokoukis notes, "Obama chose not to reverse that elevated level of spending; thus he, along with congressional Democrats, [is] responsible for it." Obama spends as if the 2008 emergency were permanent. Or, to put it another way, he's like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded and proceeds to give up run after run. The James Pethokoukis piece is entitled Actually, the Obama spending binge really did happen and pretty much puts the lie to the nonsense in the main link. And it's entirely amusing that the left has created a scenario where they can't even trust their own polls: I've seen very convincing data (and trust me, so has the White House) that people are flat-out lying to pollsters, because they know how the left destroys anyone with an opposing opinion (the race card, war mongerer, baby hater, war on women-- all failed policies aimed at anyone who opposes Obama). No union member (or anybody else for that matter) is going to answer an anonymous pollster truthfully. Why would you? Delicious irony to savor as Obama plummets.

zenviper said @ 4:11am GMT on 24th May [Score:1 Funny] Are you serious inc? Romney has experience running a business. He has a law degree from Harvard, and an MBA from Harvard. What is your background? Because based on my education, I can tell you that the editorial you are quoting is misguided political fodder, and translates to jack shit in the real world.

mechanical contrivance said @ 4:36am GMT on 24th May The Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch, so anything in it can be safely ignored.

incpenners said @ 6:01am GMT on 24th May [Score:1 Funny] WSJ = Rupert Murdoch = Fox News = dismissed You've precisely illustrated my point about the left, and why people lie to pollsters. I'm not going to make sweeping predictions about the upcoming election, but I'll suggest to you that based on what I've seen, and comparing it to history, your side is going to be very, very surprised. very. Especially if they continue to believe the polls. You fear Murdoch, but refuse to acknowledge the (pro-Obama) bias of ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, New York Times, LATimes, Washington Post, NPR... The rest of America is not as dumb as you suppose them to be.

Ankylosaur said @ 6:15am GMT on 24th May Could you please elaborate on how this illustrates your point on lying to pollsters? Are people lying because they fear Obama or because they fear Murdoch? Again, this isn't sounding like a very coherent conspiracy theory.

arrowhen said @ 1:04pm GMT on 24th May [Score:4 Underrated] Dude, have you MET the rest of America? If anything, they're even dumber than we suppose them to be.

incpenners said @ 11:05pm GMT on 24th May [Score:-2 Overrated] That's the sort of condescension that (rightfully) costs people elections.

sanepride said @ 12:29am GMT on 25th May [Score:2] It's also what gives people two ruinous terms of George W. Bush.

zenviper said @ 1:27pm GMT on 26th May [Score:-2] +1 truthful for lowest common denominator?

Supreme_Coconut said @ 11:37pm GMT on 24th May There really needs to be a +1 Sad.

conception said @ 7:56pm GMT on 24th May [Score:1 Insightful] You have to be a bosco. You have to be.

yankster said @ 12:39am GMT on 26th May he may well be THE bosco.

ComposerNate said @ 1:38am GMT on 26th May I appreciate his not also anti-homosexualizing (R), has those boundaries.

arctan said @ 5:29am GMT on 24th May [Score:1 Underrated] Obama spends as if the 2008 emergency were permanent. Which is obvious foolishness, seeing as how the emergency ended immediately on Jan. 1, 2009 and nobody is having any trouble with jobs anymore at all.

incpenners said @ 6:03am GMT on 24th May [Score:-2 Funny] Your guy has made it worse. Your side refuses to hold him accountable, because of his skin color. People are not stupid. They can see it.

LeavemeAlone said @ 11:54am GMT on 24th May For what? The stimulus was too small, not too large. Health care reform should have been government administered like Medicare instead of what was done. Has he done things I haven't liked? Sure, but the alternative is worse. Also, does this mean that Republicans didn't hold George W. Bush accountable because he was white?

incpenners said @ 11:09pm GMT on 24th May [Score:-1] For what? The stimulus was too small, not too large. Health care reform should have been government administered like Medicare instead of what was done. Yeah, we didn't go far enough into debt. That's right. And have you noticed how 'Obamacare' is polling these days? Hint: nobody wants it. Has he done things I haven't liked? Sure, but the alternative is worse. The alternative is most assuredly not worse, and it can't be had soon enough. Also, does this mean that Republicans didn't hold George W. Bush accountable because he was white? The race card will get you nowhere. It doesn't work anymore.

KingPellinore said @ 11:20pm GMT on 24th May You can't argue with 'penners, guys. He's a paid GOP schill. If Satan himself ran against Obama, 'penners would be the first guy arguing that we needed to sacrifice babies to the dark lord.

sanepride said @ 12:32am GMT on 25th May And so when you say Your side refuses to hold him accountable, because of his skin color. -How is that not 'playing the race card'?

swiggy said @ 3:40am GMT on 25th May Remember, saying someone is playing the race card is playing the race card. And saying someone is playing the race card by saying someone is playing the race card is ALSO playing the race card. Deceive, Inveigle, Obfuscate.

Menchi said @ 12:46pm GMT on 25th May [Score:4 Insightful] incpenners: "No union member (or anybody else for that matter) is going to answer an anonymous pollster truthfully." incpenners: "And have you noticed how 'Obamacare' is polling these days? Hint: nobody wants it." Therefore, people are thrilled for Obamacare! Thanks for pointing that out, penners!

jerd said @ 1:56pm GMT on 24th May Like "your side" refused to hold the Bushs accountable for 10 years of corruption, mismanagement and the wasted deaths of thousands of soldiers in useless wars? Pot-Kettle... The current economic situation is the result of 30 years of mismanagement and debt-bingeing - by both sides. Sure, they have different reasons for doing so - saving the poor for Demos; Fighting wars on the other side of the world and "trickle down economics' for the Repubs. But the result is the same, massive debt, flat wages, fewer jobs and a stagnant economy. Taking sides like this is a football game is stupid. It means you to get sidetracked into the simple "my team" vs "their team" perspective. Hopefully people will realise that neither side is "their side" and that both political parties are guilty of mis-management as the system itself is broken. Ah, I guess what I'm saying is "Hate the game, don't hate the player"....or something....it's late and it's time to get another beer from the fridge.

Croatia said @ 6:13pm GMT on 24th May What you said. If anyone wants to criticize Obama that is totally fine by me. I'll join in because in many ways, to me as a progressive, he is an epic failure. But if that person refuses to admit the reality of what W. Bush's two term presidency actually was, I cannot speak about it with them any further.

lalanda said @ 6:54pm GMT on 24th May Actually, I haven't though of his skin colour for several years.

incpenners said @ 11:10pm GMT on 24th May [Score:1 Good] Of course you haven't. You're more evolved than the people you disagree with.

jerv said @ 7:08am GMT on 25th May The people that see it are scientifically proven to act based on feelings instead of facts. Those people also tend to believe things like, "Horse and Sparrow economics works!", and that the definition of "smaller, less intrusive government" is one a government that makes medical decisions for women and interferes with civil matters like what consenting adults do in the bedroom. So tell me, with the self-serving hypocrisy your side displays along with an inability to even perceive facts let alone use actual logic to derive a meaningful conclusion from them (even if it's a conclusion we non-batshit-crazy people disagree with), how can you expect us to take you or your idols seriously?

theolypse said @ 11:41am GMT on 26th May Horse and Sparrow Economic Policy sounds like a Sidereal bureaucracy charm. Help me write up mechanics, and I'll roll out some flavor text in a day.

Ankylosaur said @ 5:57am GMT on 24th May Don't answer the anonymous pollster truthfully! The All Seeing Obama will destroy you if you do! Only they won't destroy you because their destruction policies fail! Or something! And UNIONS! Whatever the case just FEAR FEAR FEAR! Is this the new birtherish conspiracy you guys are pushing now? It's not very coherent.

incpenners said @ 6:04am GMT on 24th May [Score:-2] You've obviously never been in a union, or lived in Chicago. Laugh all you want, I don't care, I've seen the future and it ain't Obama.

KingPellinore said @ 12:49pm GMT on 24th May [Score:5] Is it Thunderdome? Please tell me it's Thunderdome!

Supreme_Coconut said @ 11:39pm GMT on 24th May God, I hope not. That movie was terrible.

swiggy said @ 3:41am GMT on 25th May something about a boot stamping on a face or something.

mechanical contrivance said @ 11:24pm GMT on 25th May In the future, beer comes in liters and the gin tastes like cloves.

Old Man said @ 1:05am GMT on 26th May I likes a pint. You could 'a drawed me off a pint easy enough. We didn't 'ave these bleeding litres when I was a young man.

soulecho said @ 12:05am GMT on 25th May Tell me all about unions incpeners, please. I can hardly wait for your enlightening words.

jerv said @ 7:20am GMT on 25th May I've seen the future too. The United States is no longer a superpower, and barely more than a memory. The Tea Party and the rest of the Radical Right weaken the nation to the point where the US government truly is a bunch of puppets with no actual power. The economy tanks and we see the sort of economic inequality and rampant poverty normally only seen nowadays in Third World nations. Intolerance gives way to violence. But you are correct that the future isn't Obama. The future is the people who currently oppose him. And you cannot complain when the country goes to shit because it will be the country that you made happen.

zenviper said @ 1:33pm GMT on 26th May I think we are still a superpower... and barely more than a memory? What is all this?

Adam said @ 7:17am GMT on 24th May It's like you're a machine that spits out right-wing talking points. While the GOP is, as we speak, vomiting out party stalwarts like Dick Lugar in fits of ideological purity purging, you accuse the "left" (whoever the fuck that's supposed to be) of destroying "anyone with an opposing opinion. To support this retarded proposition, you bring up: the race card (what the fuck does this even mean?); "war mongerer" (again, what are you talking about?); baby hater (I say it again); "war on women," a legitimate characterization of a GOP House which seems determined to fuck womens' rights over at the federal level, and several state legislatures dominated by the GOP which are happy to oblige on the state level. You then call these "failed policies," when you haven't established that they're policies at all, never mind that they've already failed. In summary, no. You and your chums have claimed that Obama is "plummeting" since the moment he took office. To account for the fact that the polls don't support this claim, you make up some fantasy scenario where people who have nothing to gain by lying to pollsters are nonetheless lying to pollsters.

tiemy said @ 6:59pm GMT on 24th May Not that penners isn't otherwise full of shit, but it's well documented that Obama's approval rating saw a steep drop as voter disenchantment set in (after the 'hope and change' fraud finally dissipated). They've since seen their biggest gains largely as a result of the barrage of militarist war propaganda (which continues, with a Hollywood film glorifying Obama as the Warrior President Defending the Homeland set to be released just before the 2012 elections) that followed Obama's illegal assassination of Bin Laden. Not exactly something to celebrate in my view.

theolypse said @ 11:42am GMT on 26th May Every time you two agree, I start convulsively masturbating.

mechanical contrivance said @ 2:57am GMT on 27th May I think you mean compulsively, although convulsively also works, I guess.

theolypse said @ 4:52am GMT on 27th May I say--I say--I say, I mean what I say and I say what I say I mean, son. You know what I mean? Of course you do.

mechanical contrivance said @ 5:14am GMT on 27th May [Score:1 Insightful]

Silent said @ 11:20am GMT on 24th May How exactly can you know that someone lied in a poll, unless of course you poll them a second time. Then if they lied in the first how can you be sure they didn't lie in the second? So what exactly do people have to fear from the Anonymous Pollster/Obama conspiracy? Are they worried that the man with the clipboard might be Obama in disguise and if they disagree he will destroy them with eye lasers? Actually that would make sense, ALL FEAR EYE LASER OBAMA. Otherwise you've sort of contradicted your proposed motive for people lying, you know? Oh and yes, when I am asked questions in a poll I will answer truthfully, I don't get anything from lying and I'm not a douche-bag looking to skewer results.

jerd said @ 2:39pm GMT on 24th May [Score:1 Funny] Thanks to the previous 10+ years of economic mis-management, Obama was handed the economic equivalent of a pile of shit with a grenade lodged in it. The grenade hasn't gone off, but he has got covered in a bit of shit. And this isn't the sort of problem that can be cured in a year or two. The economic problems the world is facing are huge and ongoing. The Republicans are lucky that they lost power when they did. They now get the easy job of sitting on the sidelines and heckling the guy trying to clean up the mess they helped create. What would you like Obama to do? It seems like the govt. has two options - try to spend their way out of the current mess or cut spending and watch from the sidelines as the US goes into recession or worse. Neither are very good choices but being blamed for a bit of extra spending seems like a great option compared to being blamed for being at the helm during the first depression of the 21st century. Do you really think the Republicans would do any better? I can see it now - cut taxes, cut welfare (except corporate welfare), increase defense spending and start another war!- wheeee!

tiemy said @ 6:53pm GMT on 24th May they know how the left destroys anyone with an opposing opinion (the race card, war mongerer, baby hater, war on women-- all failed policies aimed at anyone who opposes Obama). These are the same people that have gone from denouncing the left as drug addicted losers to now outright employing police repression and 'terrorism' charges to silence it, correct? I think you're mixing up 'the left' with various Democratic Party/US government shills, which are indeed terrifying and powerful - they can destroy those on the right in a thousand different ways, from the dreaded MoveOn email petition to the mild denunciations of a Rachel Maddow segment. And I'm still not sure why you've got this hardon for Obama. America's permanent war has been continued and expanded, the Constitution shredded and replaced with a police-state 'legality' Dick Cheney could have only dreamed of, corporate America and Wall Street have posted record profits several years running, poverty and hunger are way up, wages are way down, public services and social reform are being gutted at all levels of government - all thanks to Obama and the Democrats. Why no love for the man's historic achievements?

incpenners said @ 11:22pm GMT on 24th May These are the same people that have gone from denouncing the left as drug addicted losers I know it will hurt, but go read David Horowitz's 'Radical Son' for some insight on ideological purity on the radical left. No one can ever be pure enough; Gibbs is simply cutting that group loose because they're no longer needed. On the Chicago thing, do what lots of other people have done: stop relying on the state for protection. Protect yourself. think you're mixing up 'the left' with various Democratic Party/US government shills, which are indeed terrifying and powerful - they can destroy those on the right in a thousand different ways, from the dreaded MoveOn email petition to the mild denunciations of a Rachel Maddow segment. They're they same, separated only by degrees of implementation. If Rachel Maddow could contrive to force me to accept Obamacare (or confiscatory taxation, or euthanasia or any of the rest of that agenda) I believe she'd do so in a heartbeat. I'm more concerned about Obama because he has the will and the means. And I'm still not sure why you've got this hardon for Obama. Really?

tiemy said @ 12:23am GMT on 25th May Lawl, what radical left? Gibbs was denouncing barely left-of-center Democrats who were making some friendly criticisms. That's how far to the right the Obama administration is. And I don't know what 'protect yourself' is supposed to mean, but it's beside the point - Chicago and other examples show how Obama and the Democrats have shifted from just political/ideological hostility to the left to physical hostility. Really? Ya rly. I understand partisan hackery, but you can't seriously believe Obama and the Democrats haven't done far more in three years for a right-wing agenda than Bush did in eight - and with barely a peep in popular protest to boot. Why do you think the super-rich so clearly favor Obama instead of your boy?

sanepride said @ 12:34am GMT on 25th May [Score:2 Insightful] I wonder if incpenners is even capable of grasping that you are actually what he thinks Obama is.

Croatia said @ 1:47am GMT on 25th May Wow sanepride. That cuts to the heart of everything. Neocons and their apologists think Obama is a progressive because progressives got him elected, when in reality Obama has, as tiemy said, futhered the neocon agenda leaps and bounds beyond W. Bush and his freakshow.

sanepride said @ 1:59am GMT on 25th May [Score:2 Underrated] The reality is that Obama is a centrist. The fact that he is despised by both the right and the left is ample evidence of this.

arctan said @ 4:42pm GMT on 25th May [Score:2 Insightful] What's actually fascinating is how it proves the right gas gone batshit -- Obama is basically business as usual and the left is mad *because* he's business as usual, whereas the right looks at a business-as-usual centrist and sees some sort of Muslim Kenyan demonic Illuminati Stalinist Antichrist death panel bogeyman. It bears repeating again and again that Obama's current positions are pretty much the ones Mitt Romney used to hold back when he governed Massachusetts. The fact that these positions are suddenly communist treason in the right's eyes says a lot. (The "race card" is actually the most charitable explanation, IMO, than outright mindless Orwellian doublethink.)

sanepride said @ 5:49pm GMT on 25th May It can also never be stated enough - not only is 'Obamacare', in all of its allegedly socialist death-panel individual-mandate glory, modeled DIRECTLY from Romney's Massachusetts health care reform - but also from the REPUBLICAN proposal for an alternative to the Clinton health care reform.

bbqkink said @ 7:16pm GMT on 25th May I just keep wondering how we got to a place where Ronald Regan, a guy once thought to be too far right to get elected would be thrown out of the party as a communist.

Naruki said @ 12:33am GMT on 26th May An interesting article: my_break_with_the_extreme_right.

tiemy said @ 4:03am GMT on 26th May Governor Romney murdered US citizens without charge or trial, engaged in the warrantless wiretapping of political dissidents, or signed indefinite detention into law? Obama is not a 'centrist.' He's staunchly on the political right, further in that direction than any Democratic administration (and many Republican ones) in the last 80+ years.

CapnSilver said @ 2:52am GMT on 24th May [Score:1 Underrated] Argh fuck that was meant to be underrated. Just pretend I'm Erich or Penners or something.

JCPenny said @ 3:03am GMT on 24th May Fergie invests in Tiffany, but wears plastic wristbands! Where's your Obamessiah now!?

DarkShadowRavenDragonGrrl69 said @ 6:32pm GMT on 28th May +1 (imaginary) Obamessiah I can't help giggling at that nickname.

blibblob said @ 3:52am GMT on 24th May [Score:1 Funny] Worry not. Now penners is copying you. Keep it up and he might grow a brain. Or get fired for his ineptitude in catching these things on these oh so important websites.

DarkShadowRavenDragonGrrl69 said @ 2:53am GMT on 24th May Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true. Really?

GordonGuano said @ 3:10am GMT on 24th May We really don't need two parties in America because we can pretty reliably count on enough Democrats to vote against the party line/their constituents' interest to keep anything from ever getting accomplished.

scojam said @ 4:01am GMT on 24th May I imagine there was no money to spend other than what was borrowed. So what did America get with the debt increase during his time?

bbqkink said @ 2:53am GMT on 24th May 10 million dollar ad but to spread three lies. Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

bbqkink said @ 3:04am GMT on 24th May Romney finally did an interview!!! the reporter is somewhat "friendly with him as can been seen by his comments. But to his credit asked some hard questions...which Romney ducked every one with the same dodge.."Have you seen what President Obama has done" never answering any question. Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy “What is it that he’s done as the President of the United States over the last four years?” Romney said. “The American people are interested, not so much in the history of where I was at Bain Capital, or that I have understanding of the private sector, but instead, has the President made things better for the American people?” Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012/05/23/romney-defends-bain-record-hits-obama-on-economy-he-just-doesnt-have-a-clue/?iid=sl-main-lede#ixzz1vkexqSx8

sherlock said @ 3:00am GMT on 24th May Well yeah, but the same is true of jumping out of a plane. Your acceleration is fastest when you make the jump, and slows as you fall -- yet you're still falling faster each moment. I'm sure any conservative with half a brain would charge that it's all well and good that Obama is increasing spending at a lower rate, but we're spending faster than ever under him. To extend my stupid metaphor, why not open the parachute, they would say.

bbqkink said @ 3:06am GMT on 24th May [Score:2 Funny] You forgot the part about who blew up the plane.

arctan said @ 3:27am GMT on 24th May [Score:1 Insightful] Because, stupid metaphor aside, that would involve abandoning millions to penury and starvation and turning ourselves into a Third World country ruled by cackling tinpot plutocrats freed from all restraint?

tiemy said @ 6:53pm GMT on 24th May aka the Obama-Romney agenda

theolypse said @ 11:45am GMT on 26th May I'm with tiemy, here. Have you checked in on social safety nets, lately? They're not being reraveled at any noticeable pace.

arctan said @ 8:17pm GMT on 26th May Sure. All of mainstream politics is infected with this absurd ideology that government spending is like jumping off a cliff and dismantling vital programs for the poor is like opening the parachute. I was just rebuking sherlock for repeating that toxic meme as though it were a well known and accepted fact.

theolypse said @ 4:52am GMT on 27th May It is well known and accepted that rightwingists believe it.

chold_numa said @ 3:36am GMT on 24th May That'd be great if the models we have for economics were anywhere near as good as the models we have for gravity. Government spending theorectically increases aggregate demand. Ergo, government stimulus. Not backstopping the banks theoretically made the Great Depression worse. Ergo, banks are backed with loans. Obviously, not everything has worked out, but instead of finding out why there's finger pointing and failed solutions.

bbqkink said @ 3:45am GMT on 24th May And it worked..the banks got bailed out and are doing fine...the auto industry got bailed out..fine again....corporate profits are at all time records paying near zero tax. Now where is some of that money to spend on jobs? That would work just as well.

blibblob said @ 3:55am GMT on 24th May Lols. Models for economics as good as the ones we have for gravity? Next you'll be saying that it sure would be nice if visiting a psychic was as useful as visiting a psychologist.

chold_numa said @ 6:02am GMT on 24th May I said that it would be nice if they were. Which is not quite the same thing. Secondly, I very much doubt they could be. Physics has a near plethora of constants which marks the constraints of the models and can be tested experimentally. Economics doesn't have these in a meaningful way. Nor do I believe that if they did that they could be consistently tested.

Misanthrope said @ 5:21am GMT on 24th May Hope for terminal velocity?

bbqkink said @ 3:30am GMT on 24th May And Politifacts is at it again as well Dems say under Gov. Mitt Romney, Massachusetts ranked 47th out of 50 states in job creation Rated as 1/2 true..WTF 1/2? As with many of the claims we check, there are two elements to Axelrod's claim. He is saying that 1) Massachusetts ranked 47th in job growth and 2) suggesting that Romney is to blame. We find he is right about the numbers. Indeed, federal jobs numbers indicate that, no matter how we sliced the data, the state was 47th. But we found little evidence to support the other part of Axelrod's claim, that Romney is responsible for those jobs numbers. Economists told us that it's a stretch to blame or credit Romney or any governor for job numbers. Overall, we find Axelrod's claim Half True. He was the the Governor...so....

zenviper said @ 3:41am GMT on 24th May You can't completely fault a Governor for this imo... This would be like faulting the Governor of Michigan 100% for us losing our manufacturing jobs....

bbqkink said @ 3:51am GMT on 24th May If you go around calling yourself a job creator..Mr. fix-it, looking at your record is a good way to see how your policies work..or not. "Dems say under Gov. Mitt Romney, Massachusetts ranked 47th out of 50 states in job creation" No one said it was his fault that was the assumption made by politifacts. It is just a ...well fact... 47 comes between 46 and 48.

bbqkink said @ 3:55am GMT on 24th May Oh and Louisiana had a pretty good excuse for their job losses called Katrina.

zenviper said @ 4:05am GMT on 24th May I don't know, but how important was 'job creation' to a state like Massachusetts? I mean.. they have Harvard, MIT etc.. I would imagine they have a good economy going on there... I think Mitt is saying he understands the economy, and business in general as opposed to Obama. Based on his experience, I would say that was the right move to make from a brand positioning standpoint.

bbqkink said @ 4:47am GMT on 24th May How come it is so difficult for Republicans to understand, jobs, especially middle class jobs are the most important thing to any economy. This "Job Creators" (The uber rich) bull is the biggest of all the lies that is told today. If that were true we would have the lowest unemployment rate in US history right now.

bbqkink said @ 4:56am GMT on 24th May [Score:1 Good] Nearly a century ago, Henry Ford planned for his employees to be his best customers. Challenging the conventional wisdom that the best way to maximize profits was to tailor your product to the wealthiest segment of society, Ford decided to market his black Model T as "America's Everyman car." For Ford, mass production went hand-in-hand with mass consumption. He established a simple benchmark for worker compensation: His workers should be able to buy the product they were making. Ford promised a $5-a-day minimum wage for all his workers—twice the prevailing automobile industry average. Doing so, Ford created a virtuous circle. Workers flocked to his factory to apply for positions. If they managed to secure a coveted job, then in time they too would be able to afford one of his cars. The company flourished on these twin pillars—a desirable product and a highly motivated employee base. By the time production of the Model T ceased in 1927, Ford had sold more than 15 million cars—half the world's output.

Adam said @ 10:44pm GMT on 24th May Go visit Brockton or Fall River or Lynn and then tell me what those people are supposed to do at MIT or Harvard. Or should they be grateful that one day, if they're lucky, they might get janitorial jobs there?

mechanical contrivance said @ 11:42pm GMT on 24th May Worked for Will Hunting.

Didel said @ 3:42am GMT on 24th May Surprise surprise, politicians actually have a much lesser influence over the economy than they would have you think.

chold_numa said @ 3:43am GMT on 24th May The only jobs a government can count on being created are government jobs or jobs directly created by government expenditure. Almost everything else, be they grants, tax breaks, loans, or subsidies don't guarantee any long term job growth.

zenviper said @ 3:33am GMT on 24th May Why fight the facts when you don't need to?

Ankylosaur said @ 3:45am GMT on 24th May

blibblob said @ 3:57am GMT on 24th May Try as I might, I cannot understand that. The thoughts required to devise the reasoning behind that is beyond me.

sanepride said @ 4:09am GMT on 24th May [Score:2 WTF] This was the actual original billboard: Outrageous, extreme, and unbelievably, gratuitously insensitive? Some of Heartland's biggest donors thought so.

incpenners said @ 6:06am GMT on 24th May [Score:2 Funny] Dude. It's a hoax.

Ankylosaur said @ 6:08am GMT on 24th May Nope, the sign is real. Heartland really is that deranged and desperate.

sanepride said @ 12:37am GMT on 25th May penners is referring to global warming as the hoax, not the sign. Which of course means he is just as deranged and desperate as Heartland.

Ankylosaur said @ 1:01am GMT on 25th May I know that. I was twisting his words.

sanepride said @ 1:53am GMT on 25th May How can you twist what's already so distorted and misshapen as to bear no resemblance to any actual thing?

Naruki said @ 2:56am GMT on 25th May With a steam press?

Ankylosaur said @ 5:05pm GMT on 25th May I was trying to intentionally misinterpret him to mean that he couldn't accept that such a ridiculous sign was real because it would undermine his own anti-cc position by showing how intellectually bankrupt its supposedly mainstream, non-fringe supporters are, thereby sarcastically giving him the benefit of the doubt as a way to emphasize how ridiculous his position actually is, especially if he would have corrected me (which he wouldn't have since he very cagily picks and chooses his replies to avoid any sort of honest dealing with criticism or questions -- penny, please explain how the pollster lying thing works. Are the union members afraid of Obama's omniscient destruction policies, even though they are all failures, or are the union members just lying to the pollsters about what they truly believe and will have a change of heart come election day? And how does fear of Murdoch fit into this?). But then the others thought that's what he did mean, deflating my snarky joke and making me have to explain it. Thanks :(

CapnSilver said @ 7:33am GMT on 24th May [Score:3] You're a hoax.

Omegaphobic said @ 12:29pm GMT on 24th May Now you are reduced to flat-out lying. But it's just another valid political tactic, isn't it?

KingPellinore said @ 12:55pm GMT on 24th May Then they fooled The Guardian, The LA Times, The Chicago Tribune, and, uh... RightWingNews.com.

lilmookieesquire said @ 3:21pm GMT on 24th May *tap tap* Pardon me... Are you talking about the billboard or Global Warming?

lilmookieesquire said @ 3:25pm GMT on 24th May May 2012 billboard campaign On May 4, 2012 the Institute launched a digital billboard ad campaign in the Chicago area featuring a photo of Ted Kaczynski, (the "Unabomber" whose mail bombs killed three people and injured 23 others), and asking the question, “I still believe in global warming, do you?” The Institute planned for the campaign to feature murderer Charles Manson, communist leader Fidel Castro and perhaps Osama bin Laden, asking the same question. In a statement, the Institute justified the billboards saying "the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen."[31] The billlboard reportedly "unleashed a social media-fed campaign, including a petition from the advocacy group Forecast the Facts calling on Heartland’s corporate backers to immediately pull their funding," and prompted Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), to threaten to cancel his speech at the upcoming Heartland Institute Climate Change Conference.[32] Within 24 hours Heartland canceled the campaign, although its President refused to apologize for it.[nb 2] The advertising campaign led to the loss of substantial corporate funding, [33] the resignation of Institute board members, and the resignation of almost the entire Heartland Washington D.C. office, taking the Institute's biggest project (on insurance) with it.[34]

sanepride said @ 12:44am GMT on 25th May Nice. Good luck trying to convince him that global warming itself is just as well-documented.

bltrocker said @ 6:15am GMT on 25th May As a scientist, I find this utterly disgusting and depressing.

Didel said @ 3:34am GMT on 24th May [Score:3] I'm usually skeptical when someone shows me financial data that is in terms of percentage. Especially so when we're talking about things like revenue and spending. If the deficit is $10 and a President increases spending 10 fold to create a deficit (yes, this is an insanely simple example, I apologize) that is now $100, the effect is miniscule. If the deficit is $1 trillion dollars and a President increases spending to just 1 percent that leads to an increase of a deficit of that same 1 percent, it's a quite huge change. Furthermore, they at least touched on it, but as almost an afterthought. Oh, yes, revenues are down, which means that the ratio of revenue to debt is increasing, which most people would agree is generally bad (not always.) Nobody (of any sense) would give a shit if spending was a $100 trillion if revenue was also $100 trillion. It's the difference of revenue to spending that people have problems with. I don't like this article at all. Is it true that Republicans quite misconstrue government spending for political purposes, well of course. But to me, this article is also taking statistics and numbers and making them appear better than they are in order to score some political points for the President. I consider neither the overarching theme of the Republicans attacks on the Presidents spending to be true, nor do I consider this article to do a good job of also representing the facts. And just so everyone knows where I'm coming from, I do think spending is out of hand, but mostly because we spend a shit ton on our military industrial complex (which rarely actually benefits the soldiers) and less on things I consider necessary such as infrastructure and education. I do believe that as revenues are down, and have been down for the past 5ish years now, we do need to cut back on our spending, but nobody really seems to want to do that (even the Republicans, though they talk the game). But it's okay, I don't have any children, so I won't be leaving any of them with our ever increasing debt burden.

bbqkink said @ 3:38am GMT on 24th May Per capita spending under Obama actually went down.

Didel said @ 3:49am GMT on 24th May And revenues actually decreased even more. Which means.... deficits continue to increase.... That was kind of my whole point. Spending itself is not the only issue. The deficit is the real issue.

King of the Hill said @ 4:08am GMT on 24th May US Debt end of FY08 - $10.0tn US Debt May 2012 - $15.7tn Total 3.5 yr debt increase - $5.7tn It is election year...time for them to spin the spending differently to avoid looking as bad as Bush.

bbqkink said @ 5:41am GMT on 24th May Remember this is debunking a Romney claim, not saying it is the only thing we should worry about. Revenue is also a big part of the equation and Romney is a signer of Grover Norquist's pledge. Gov. Romney became the first major candidate to sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge on December 31st, 2006. As Governor, Mitt Romney pressed for several major tax cuts in the difficult blue-state environment of Massachusetts.

Navier-Strokes said @ 4:55pm GMT on 24th May So Romney's claim is technically correct. Bush pumped up the volume on spending. Obama didn't lower it. By Romney saying the US govt under Obama spent a lot, he is correct.

lilmookieesquire said @ 5:05pm GMT on 24th May No more correct than saying "Obama lowered spending" (in relation to/from the Bush era).

Navier-Strokes said @ 4:23am GMT on 25th May Actually, what Romney said is more correct than that statement, since Obama didn't lower spending from the Bush era. As the main article shows, it's up 1.4%.

tiemy said @ 7:28pm GMT on 24th May But that misses the point: 'spending' per se isn't actually regarded as the problem in official US politics. Both parties were in lockstep agreement when it came to devoting trillions of dollars to the rescue of Wall Street after 2008; there's a similar consensus on military/war spending (where it's taken for granted that the US should be spending more than all its rivals combined), the enormous sums thrown at the emerging 'national security state,' or the amounts spent on servicing the national debt (see this breakdown of the latest budget). Like most everything else in the US, the discussion is mostly cast in euphemism. 'Spending' really means 'spending on those parts of the American government that benefit the public,' which either infringes upon or doesn't contribute to private profit and the expanding wealth of the wealthiest <1%. This is what Obama's speaking to when he boasts about his 'fiscal responsibility.'

Navier-Strokes said @ 4:31am GMT on 25th May I'm not regarding the how or the why of the spending, or whether it's useful or not. I'm only stating it exists, which the main article attempts to refute, and consequently that what Romney said is correct. If you want to say that Bush did it too, fine. Perhaps that Obama is allocating the budget in a more meaningful way, ok. Make an argument that spending is necessary to revitalize the economy according to Keynesian Theory, go for it. Still, what Romney said is correct, and the main article's proof to the contrary is invalid. There is a difference between spending a lot and increasing spending.

bbqkink said @ 7:11pm GMT on 25th May Not really, what Romney said was that there was run away spending.

Navier-Strokes said @ 12:27pm GMT on 26th May I interpret run-away spending to mean high levels of spending, not fast-increasing levels of spending. Perhaps you interpret it differently?

rndmnmbr said @ 12:37pm GMT on 24th May Revenues continued to decrease because the primary source of revenues, income tax, was not coming in. The problem is not the government spending too much, it's the government not making enough.

atter_cob said @ 3:45am GMT on 24th May The people Romney wants to court are mostly in one of two groups: a) Rich asshole (not all rich people are assholes, but the one Romney is aiming for are) who think that lying is a good way to get what you want b) Dumb people who don't understand the facts so they think any opinion is good as long as the person asserting it says it with conviction. Obama is going for the other people who are smart enough to recognize lies from truth and honest enough to care. Conclusion: Clearly Romney can lie all he wants to and there is no downside for him.

lilmookieesquire said @ 4:06am GMT on 24th May So Romney is courting the majority or Americans?

lilmookieesquire said @ 4:06am GMT on 24th May FFFffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff-

GordonGuano said @ 4:54am GMT on 24th May IOKIYAR. Learn it. Live it.

dudeman said @ 9:58am GMT on 24th May Here's my two cents; Regardless of who wins this election, nothing significant will change in regards to the economy.

lilmookieesquire said @ 3:17pm GMT on 24th May *In the short term** **sans taxcuts.

tiemy said @ 7:33pm GMT on 24th May You don't think Romney would extend the Bush-Obama tax cuts?

sanepride said @ 12:42am GMT on 25th May Paul Krugman begs to differ.

radioelectric said @ 6:39pm GMT on 24th May Wait, so if spending against time is f(t) is this referring to f'(t) or f''(t)?

sherlock said @ 3:14am GMT on 25th May That kind of goes back to my point. Spending is f(t), And the article says Obama has increased spending at the slowest rate, i.e. f'(t) is small but > 0. Hence f(t) is still going up. And if we assume that the governments income has not increased then that means that the national debt, even ignoring interest, is increasing and doing so at an increasing rate.

radioelectric said @ 10:08pm GMT on 25th May I was unclear in my question so I am still not sure about your answer. Does "spending" here mean "amount of money spent" or "rate of spending"? i.e. is it f(t) = money spent f'(t) = spending rate f''(t) = rate of change in the spending rate etc? In this case f(t) should always be going up unless the government stops spending any money at all.

sanepride said @ 1:46am GMT on 25th May [Score:1 Underrated] Bill Clinton: still awesome

coffeejoejava said @ 2:34pm GMT on 27th May The fact remains that, to quote a Colonel I used to work for..."numbers are like P.O.W.'s.....Torture them enough and they will tell you anything you want to know" Another undeniable fact is that while the Conservatives are of a like mind in what our desires for this country should be, the Liberals are a collection of fringe ideologies loosely cobbled together to form ...something. You have the Occupiers, yet the Liberals are one of the largest beneficiaries of campaign donations from large banks and investment firms. You have anti- nuke's, PETA, tree huggers that feel a tree is worth more than a job for an American, welfare recipients , Hollywood stars. The last one kills me, they are all for distribution of wealth, as long as it is not theirs!

theolypse said @ 8:08am GMT on 28th May Better to be uniformly wrong than to debate nuance.

[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.