Politics Obama - Actually doing a good job?

I think you totally missed the point here.

 

Once again, the data on the costs/savings resulting from the ACA is what I will continue to post.

Not analogies and not biased op eds.

 

I am not sure what your point is but I do not think length is correlates with complexity, insight, understanding or fill in the blank. I often see length or lack of brevity as a means to deceive or misdirection.

I will clarify. To me, it is not possible for any budget to be complicated. I acknowledge that some may find any budget complicated.


--- merged: Feb 21, 2013 at 7:41 PM ---

Do you think I missed the point? So true, which is why I ask the questions! Your comment here did not help me.
--- merged: Feb 21, 2013 at 7:44 PM ---

Tell me about the savings?

A different question - How much more should a healthy person under 30 expect to pay for insurance? Will their premiums for health care insurance go up, or will they go down? If they are healthy and don't have insurance as a group, will their costs go up or down for health care?

 

I don't know if I agree, his point is not clear to me. Also, lost on me was his reference to the Tea Party. In my experience Tea Party people are no more or less conversant on budget issues than any other political group. Even President Obama has made federal budget comparisons to household budgets. Was his post simply a cliche intended to take a poke at Tea Party people?

 

While I have seen many politicians of all strips lay out the analogy that they need to manage the budget the way that families do their own budgets, I believe that most are using a faulty analogy as a rhetorical crutch. With the Tea Party, and their very strong urges to cut taxes and cut spending, I think they believe the analogy.

They believe that debt is bad. They believe that ALL deficits are bad. They also believe that revenue generating tools like taxes, are bad.

From what I can see, many in the Tea Party believe that if we just do without the big screen TV and the extra Caribbean trip this year, we will be back on stable footing.

National budgets do not work like that. You cut here, it effects revenue there. You cut there, it has a negative influence on the over all economy there. National budgets have a direct impact on the economy. To suggest it is like a household budget is to suggest that Mom and Dad, if they just juggle the expenses, will end up with increased wages.

It doesn't work like that.

As for my comment not helping. Really? I am sorry but to take Redux's comment and construe that he's talking about your wife rather than your weak analogy about your wife's spending habits, is a bit much. Consider my comment a virtual rolling of my eyes as I cannot believe anyone *that* obtuse.

 

The Tea Party budget proposed last year called for cutting spending by $9+ trillion over 10 years....cutting nearly $1 trillion/year out of an annual budget of $3.5 billion.

I dont know how they run their households, but no reasonable economist or budget analyst believes you can cut the budget by 1/3.

 

Consumer spending has been the driving force behind the growth of the US economy, not spending cuts and not a balanced budget.

The economy is in trouble because consumers are not consuming enough. They are not consuming enough because too many of them don't have an income which allows them to spend beyond their basic needs.

The machine is broken. The government is in the unique position of being able to help to correct that by creating jobs in places the private sector does not engage itself with. Put people to work, pay them a fair wage and they begin spending again. The machine may stumble a bit still, but it's moving again. Manufacturing and retail ramps back up as a result. New hiring begins. Tax revenues increase. And so it goes.

Please tell me how spending cuts will accomplish this and if this is something you could accomplish on your household budget?

Here's a clue to the latter part. You spend to buy a piece of property as an investment, even if it strains your budget. You rent it out and not only do you begin receiving income on it, if it's value rises you earn equity.

Spend now, reap the rewards later. Should we not invest in our own economy, even at the expense of going further into debt, if the outcome promises to yield a greater benefit than had we not invested?

 

Delivers cuts too (in terms of unemployment payments)

 

This is somewhat a mis-characterization of the views of Tea Party people. If you have something to support this claim, please share it.

In fact Tea Party people who also happen to be involved in local or state politics often support/propose/advocate for debt financing government projects. It is common. However, when debt is used in this manner (i.e. bonds) budgets are established to pay the interest and principle. In the context of floating bonds or other forms of debt financing without properly budgeting for them - most do view these types of deficits as "bad" - as i do. Short-term deficits are not normally a problem when responsible government officials establish plans for eliminating the deficit. The notion that all taxes are "bad" is simply hyperbole - no one believes all taxes are bad.
--- merged: Feb 28, 2013 at 5:47 PM ---

I have not seen this proposal. Can you be more specific or provide a link so I can look into it?
--- merged: Feb 28, 2013 at 5:55 PM ---

This is a chicken/egg type question of what comes first. Many agree with you, many don't. I think investment comes first and that generally it is innovation that is the driver of economic growth - business creates demand that then stimulates consumer spending. In our current situation I see business sitting on cash that would otherwise be invested that would spur economic growth. Apple is sitting on about $140 billion in cash - banks are tight are are not lending money at a level needed to stimulate small business growth or housing sales - innovators are uncertain and are on hold given the environment - all these things hurt job growth which then hurts consumer spending.
--- merged: Feb 28, 2013 at 6:03 PM ---

Bush cut taxes, businesses knew what to expect. Obama created uncertainty. If Obama had a plan and got it implemented regardless of the tax rates or the spending levels we would have had a better recovery. Under Obama three years after healthcare reform we still don't know what the impact is going to be - he needs to lead.

If people assume Bush failed in terms of the economy, Obama is even worse.



Chart courtesy of my favorite publication - Investors Business Daily

 

The GOP is not imploding - Obama's continued attempts at passing blame is getting old. The GOP is rebounding from the 11/12 defeat, I expect major gains in the House and Senate in 2014. Obama has failed to take advantage of his short window of opportunity after the election - he will be in lame duck status pretty quickly.

 

The Tea Party budget introduced by Senators Rand Paul, Jim DeMint and Mike Lee last March:

Perhaps you can explain how to cut nearly$1 trillion/year for each of the next 10 years w/o massive disruption to the economy. They dont.

 

People will spend money, that is not the problem. I give an example of a problem - Large numbers of people are in homes where the mortgage is greater than the value of the home. The can not refinance to take advantage of lower rates - if they could they would spend more. They can not sell and get a new mortgage - if they could they would spend more. Many face the uncertainty of foreclosure or short-sales, if this uncertainty passed they would spend more. Etc. Etc. So, looking at this aspect of the economy some obvious solutions come to light. Ease lending standards, address homeowners "under-water", streamline the forclosure/short-sale process, etc, etc. We are about 6 years passed the bubble and there is still no clarity. Other aspects of the economy should be addressed as well, for example give incentive for companies to repatriate cash held overseas. Repeal Obamacare. Etc. Etc.
--- merged: Feb 28, 2013 at 6:17 PM ---

Obama consistently gives speeches saying the problem is with Republicans. He is not leading. Perhaps he can not lead. Perhaps he is the wrong man for the job. I do not know, but the results are clear.
--- merged: Feb 28, 2013 at 6:27 PM ---

I will need to look at the details but at one point President Obama was saying his plan would reduce the deficit by $3.8 to $4 trillion over 10 years. If your point is that $9 trillion is unreasonable but $4 trillion is reasonable - I concede that you hold that view and that reasonable people can disagree. However, the way I would look at it is that if the gap is about $5 trillion over 10 years - I think a "compromise" could be reached assuming the Tea Party proposal would be one extreme and Obama's the other - many people would support something in the middle. In addition, people like me can support tax reform (including closing loopholes, like carried interest) assuming a serious commitment to controlling spending comes first.

PolitiFact | Obama says his budget plan will cut deficits by $4 trillion

 

What is clear is that poll after poll since the first of the year show Republicans falling lower and lower in public opinion.

Just one example:



Being anywhere from 15-20 points underwater, depending on the poll, would have me worried if I were a Republican.

And on issue after issue -- the budget/debt reduction, tax policy, immigration, energy/climate change, and even gun control (to a lesser extent), the public is more supportive of the Obama position than the Republican position.
--- merged: Feb 28, 2013 at 6:37 PM ---
When nearly 2/3 of the public (62%) think a party is out of touch with the voting public and more than half (52%) think a party is too extreme, that party is in trouble.