A new Rasmussen poll.
Eighty-three percent (83%) of Republicans view Ryan favorably, and 72% think Romney made a good choice in picking him as his running mate. Fifty-four percent (54%) of Democrats give Ryan unfavorable marks, and only 18% view Romney’s selection as a good one.
The choice is now sharply defined.
Seventy-one percent (71%) of voters regard Ryan as ideologically conservative, including 40% who say he’s Very Conservative. That’s more conservative tha[n] voters think Romney is and puts Ryan nearly as far to the political right as voters think the president is to the political left.
It's rough for people like me who fear both the right and the left.
पोस्ट्स
१४० टिप्पण्या:
Ok, professor... show your work. Why is Ryan something to be "feared?"
Very conservative? I think not.
Facts about Ryan:
-Voted YES on TARP (2008)
-Voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008)
-Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
-Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)
-Voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)
-Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
-Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)
-Voted YES on Head Start Act (2007)
-Voted YES on No Child Left Behind Act (2001)
-Voted YES on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
-Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
-Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)
-Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
-Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)
-Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
-Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)
Stolen form Vox Day.
This is not a conservative record, definitely not very conservative
It's rough for people like me who fear both the right and the left.
It's a rough time for everyone. Those in between get no special bragging rights.
But not so bad for those of us who will reluctantly accept a pair of moderates like Romney and Ryan, since we obviously cannot get a whole loaf.
I have to say I admire Ryan for putting for a concrete plan. I hate it, truly hate it, but I can't help but respect the courage to do that.
Unfortunately, it is going to cost him.
We live in an era when proposing a balanced budget is defined as very conservative.
Clearly, the good prof is confusing right-wing conservatism with a moderate conservative with a grasp of math and finance and the moral courage to actually put forth a plan.
I suppose she'd feel better if he had record of voting "present," like Obama.
Dose of Sanity: Ryan's plan increases spending and taxes above the average, follows closely to the president's debt commissions plans, and was supported by Democrat Wyden of... Oregon, I believe? Pretending it is a radical plan and hoping people don't know better is not a winning strategy.
Let me translate Dose of Sanity:
"I don't have a productive, serious proposal. What I do know is, I don't like yours."
And given the fact that the Congressional Dems haven't come up with ANYTHING specific, Dose is fine with that.
re: the copy & paste @ 10:36AM
This is not a conservative record, definitely not very conservative
Concern trolling?
I'm sure he will "evolve" to the satisfaction of those who want conservative representation at the big table.
I have to say I admire Ryan for putting for a concrete plan. I hate it, truly hate it, but I can't help but respect the courage to do that.
Hate the part that recognizes our fiscal death spiral or the part that balances the budget?
Unfortunately, it is going to cost him.
Unfortunately our insane spending is going to cost us all.
This seems relevant, somehow. There's been a lot of commentary recently about how Republicans have become more conservative recently. That may be true, but if our financial situation has gotten markedly worse, that automatically requires bigger cuts, both because the spending base is bigger, and the budgetary imbalance is worse.
Yeah lets fear Ryan. The only guy who actually speaks the truth and has a plan about solving the fiscal crisis we are in.
Our other choice is Obama and bankruptcy.
I would like to know details on Althouse's fear of the right.
wv: djected
Check out the Erskine Bowles video praising Ryan and his plan and slamming Obama for having a plan that doesn't work. It's all over the net today.
I am sure Bowles will have to come out and disavow his statements (e.g. Cory Booker) in order not to be put down by the Democratic establishment...
You remember Bowles... Clinton's chief of Staff. You remember Clinton... someone who cared about the economy...
He was also appointed by Obama to the budget task force which produced the Bowles Simpson budget.
people like me who fear both the right and the left.
Luckily Obama is neither — he's just Awesome!
It's rough for people like me who fear both the right and the left.
I hear you. The Right has now moved me toward the center, with Romney's nomination, because they're now as loopy with this cult shit as the Left. (Ryan is an Ayn Rand fan who - of course - lied about it when caught. Not encouraging, though I'll give him a pass because it's a one-off,...)
And a note to Hagar:
It doesn't matter how they dress, or even vote, no cultist can be considered a "moderate."
Mitt Romney's flip-flops are nothing more than his positioning to keep attaining power for the cult (which allowed him to back abortion, for instance, which goes against conservatism and, supposedly, the Mormon ethos - whatever that may be) so he can't be defined as anything but what he is - a cultist.
All Ryan did was read a book and like it. He seems smart enough to discover Rand had a cult, but, like I said, I'll give him a pass until he shows me why I shouldn't.
Also hooking up with Romney could be a "tell," but I'm fair,...
" That’s more conservative that voters think Romney is and puts Ryan nearly as far to the political right as voters think the president is to the political left."
For a moderate I would think the choice is pretty obvious.
These are odd times when trying to rein in a 16 trillion dollar debt earns Ryan the title "very conservative".
And that number doesn't account at all for the retirement liability incurred by state and local governments. More of the same is suicide at this point.
"I would like to know details on Althouse's fear of the right."
The problem with "fearing the right" in this country is that it is partially based on media slandering of traditional American conservatism. The American "Right" wants small government and to be left alone.
This is the opposite of the "right" that existed in Europe in the 1930s, which is much more akin to today's left wing party of big government, planned industrialization, and police states.
You voted for Barack Hussein Obama. Look what he did to the country. How is that fear working out for you?
Ah Ann, you've finally figured out that the most fearsome words in the English language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."
We're all too soon old and too late smart.
Ann is Left on social issues, Right on fiscal and (I think) foreign policy. That she "fears" both Right and Left is interesting, considering the Center is not where innovation is going to begin.
As for the poll, Ryan has emerged as one of the few adults in DC. Those who say he isn't Conservative enough may really be wanting a Ron Paul Libertarian, judging from Tank's list.
@ Sablan
I didn't say it was Radical. It's just not a good idea at all in my opinion. At all.
There's been a lot of commentary recently about how Republicans have become more conservative recently.
Don't I wish. The same go-along-to-get-along, my-esteemed-friend-across-the-aisle Rockefeller RINOs still hold all the levers of power in the party. As much as the left hates the TEA Party, the GOP hates it more.
In any event, the "commentary" is the usual white noise from the usual suspects, designed to frighten the low-information voter. Remember, every conservative is "the most EXTREME reichwinger ever!ZOMG!!!" until the next election. You watch - pretty soon the commentariat will whine that R&R are too radical, and why can't they be good moderates like Bush and Cheney?
The only people fooled by that are the ones that want to be fooled.
Professor, please! "Fear"? You? With your legal training, your intellect and your emotional control (not to mention Meade standing ready at the defense)? I can understand if you are "wary" of the extreme left and right but I find it very hard to imagine you as fearful.
However, for the sake of argument, let me accept your statement that you "...fear both the right and the left." I believe that fear is the product of an uninformed mind. An uninformed mind generates no data, no analyses, no risk assessments, no logical conclusions, no alternatives. An uninformed mind works only on base-level emotions. An uninformed mind only perceives a threat and then acts without forethought to eradicate the perceived threat.
Professor, do you really want us to believe that your mind is uninformed in regards to Paul Ryan? I allow that over the next couple of months, we will all learn more about both the "left and the right". That data will enable us to finalize our analyses and make better decisions on how we will vote.
But "fear" must not be a factor in those determinations. Fear is the progenitor of all human misery. Please do not be fearful. Just be yourself.
"It's rough for people like me who fear both the right and the left."
Just because a poll says he's very conservative, doesn't make it so.
"I didn't say it was Radical. It's just not a good idea at all in my opinion. At all."
-- So, do you want lower taxes and lower spending?
I didn't say it was Radical. It's just not a good idea at all in my opinion. At all.
Well as there are no ideas coming from the Democrats on how to reign in our unsustainable spending, I'm curious if you have any credible ideas or if national insolvency is preferable over a plan you don't like.
So, do you want lower taxes and lower spending?
Depends on what you mean. I want to revenue neutral - but not at the expense of growth.
Right now, deep spending cuts would create a tragic cycle.
Right now, deep tax cuts would create a massive long term problem. (Since it's much easier to vote for a tax cut than a later tax increase to change it back).
I'd do quite a bit with the tax code, but I'd get boring and technical if I got into it.
"We live in an era when proposing a balanced budget is defined as very conservative."
We live in an era when proposing a balanced budget 28 years in the future is defined as very conservative. It's simply ridiculous.
Christopher Caldwell in yesterday's FT:
"But radicalism is a relative matter. Mr Ryan’s plan is radical only if you think the present level of welfare benefits can be maintained at the present level of taxation. If you don’t think that, then his plan is merely the best thought-out (so far) of various inevitably painful alternatives. Democrats have nothing nearly so detailed, nor did they rally behind Simpson-Bowles. They merely argue that reforming the welfare state along the lines Mr Ryan suggests will leave people with fewer benefits. Of course it will. That is what makes it a reform."
... Sanity, take a look again. Ryan's plan both increases spending AND tax revenue. There's literally nothing radical about it, nor even particularly super conservative. It simply curbs some growth here and there. It is literally a compromise budget that gives significantly more than it takes. If you reject that, you've rejected any attempt at compromise with the right.
Well as there are no ideas coming from the Democrats on how to reign in our unsustainable spending, I'm curious if you have any credible ideas or if national insolvency is preferable over a plan you don't like.
Right now, I'd be more concerned with the economic growth and job creation. To me, any spending cuts, especially now, is going to shoot those goals right in the foot. I'd like to see targetted spending in order to create sustainable growth...then we'll focus on the short term deficiet, then the long term debt.
To be fair, I think that's the plan of both parties, just with different methods.
(Maybe not ryan's plan though)
"Right now, deep spending cuts would create a tragic cycle."
He's not even proposing cuts. He proposes increasing spending at a rate slower than President Profligate.
Going back to the list posted@ 10:36AM
I've seen numerous iterations posted in comments at various sites. Not sure what the intention is: a) make ultra conservatives vote for Obama? b) make ultra conservatives not vote at all? or c) assure those in the middle that Ryan isn't such a "scary" guy after all and it is OK to vote for him?
The list has been passed around so much I can't find the original source. Vox was over at WND - isn't that the home base for the birther types?
This is, I think, the most important reason to pick Ryan. It put these issues front and center. I literally now am seeing how completely unwilling to even entertain compromise the left has been. Many, many people on the left don't even bother to be passingly conversant in Ryan's plan.
I like compromise; I'm a squishy moderate. I am willing to make unappealing choices to get something done.
I find that I can do that with the right; with the left, I realize, I never can. That, more than anything, will push more out of the middle.
I for one look forward to the Ryan tractor jump over 200 Medicare grandmothers, laid side-by-side.
I believe it is scheduled for the finale at the Minnesota State Fair on Saturday Sept. 1.
Bringing another blue state into play!
@ Sablin
If you reject that, you've rejected any attempt at compromise with the right.
If you don't accept our plan, you're not ever willing to compromise...hahaha.
Aside from that - Do you mean Romney's plan (which I honestly didn't know existed) or Ryan's budget? I don't think Ryan's plan increases tax revenue, and I think it would sharply curb growth.
No? If I'm wrong let me - I'm happy to read over anything.
The "extreme conservatism" of both these guys seems to consist of their being good at arithmetic and a belief that, here on earth at least, numbers rule.
I find that I can do that with the right; with the left, I realize, I never can. That, more than anything, will push more out of the middle.
Yeesh - who are you talking to on the left? I'm happy to be that conversation, any day.
"Right now, I'd be more concerned with the economic growth and job creation."
Everybody's concerned with economic growth and job creation. That'a not where we differ. We differ in how you get there. You think taking more money from the private sector and having government decide where to spend it is the solution. We think that's the problem.
Read Ryan's plan, or the link I gave. Revenue and spending are above average in the Ryan plan. The Ryan plan is built out of work with Democrats and the debt commission. You can reject it in part and accept it in part, you can talk about it and come back with counter offers.
None of that happens. Instead, the left lies to me. Tells me it is cutting critical support for children and will kill seniors. These are incorrect (I won't say lies, since that implies they know it is untrue.) There's not any attempt to reach an accord; just shrieking demagoguery.
We live in an era when proposing a balanced budget is defined as very conservative.
To clarify, he's not taking the radical step of proposing the federal government ought not spend trillions of dollars more than it takes in tax revenue right away. He's proposing we continue to make the national debt larger for roughly thirty more years, and balance the budget some time around 2040. That's what's being called "very conservative".
Does of Sanity, actually Ryan plan may increase taxes. His proposal is to lower corporate and personal tax rates, and then remove the tax breaks, many deductions, etc.
Head of Cleveland Cliffs mining spoke out against this as his company works the tax breaks and corporate welfare quite well.
To me, any spending cuts, especially now, is going to shoot those goals right in the foot
Clearly the level of federal government spending we're attempting to endure right now, which is higher by any measure than what has been spent by any organization since the beginning of time, is not the correct level to support the economic growth and job creation we both want.
By how much do you think it should be increased? Factor of twelve?
1 in 7 Americans gets food stamps. That tells me we either are in a depression as bad as 1935, or the gov't is handing out a lot of free money to those who like getting free stuff.
@ Sablan
I've tried reading Ryan's budget right from the source (the 99 page pdf) but it appears to be all conclusions.
Do have a better link on his proposals? More neutral, the better.
To people trying to bait me out:
Well, does Ryan's budget increase or cut taxes? You seem to be at odds with yourselves.
Spending and Debt are long term problems, certainly. Making cuts now might actually exacerbate them though, despite the "simple" logic that is often used.
DOS - you believe in the myth of government spending as somehow a driver of our economy when it's the other way around. Government spending is a burden on the private sector. How can you be so delusional?
Dose of Sanity said...
Right now, I'd be more concerned with the economic growth and job creation. To me, any spending cuts, especially now, is going to shoot those goals right in the foot. I'd like to see targetted spending in order to create sustainable growth...then we'll focus on the short term deficiet, then the long term debt.
HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA
Never mind, that we tried a $787 billion dollar spending bill which did not work.
Never mind, that we're spending more as a % of GDP than at any point since WW II.
Never mind, that there is no evidence, anywhere at all, that government spending leads to economic growth.
We need more spending!
And, the super-duper "targeted" kind.
Remember, you believe in facts.
Oh good, Jay is here. Down goes the meaningful discussions. :(
I see you haven't changed your posting pattern Jay, it's very predictable and boring. Would at least try and be original? I feel like you are just copy pasting at this point.
The Ryan budget that passed Congress is probably available on Thomas. I'm not doing your homework for you.
If regulations are removed and companies are freer or freed to make more money, does it matter as much?
Dose of Sanity said...
I have to say I admire Ryan for putting for a concrete plan. I hate it, truly hate it, but I can't help but respect the courage to do that.
Of course you hate it.
You haven't read it.
Idiot.
I'd like to see targetted spending in order to create sustainable growth...then we'll focus on the short term deficiet, then the long term debt.
Wasn't the near trillion dollar stimulus bill supposed to do that? In fact, we are spending a trillion dollars more than we were in 2008 and have darn little to show for it other than raising the debt from $10 to $15 trillion with no end in sight.
What can be said is that an extra $5 trillion in debt hadn't done anything to create sustainable jobs. I really have to question the mathematical abilities of people who think we cam continue down the paths of annual trillion dollar deficits.
Realized everyone might not know what Thomas is: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php
DOS - do you understand anything about macroeconomics other then what Krugman taught you?
Dose of Sanity said...
Oh good, Jay is here. Down goes the meaningful discussions. :(
Yes!
Because when you type a bunch of silly bullshilt and lies, we're all so enthralled with your contributions to the meaningful discussions
Really. We are.
DOS - you believe in the myth of government spending as somehow a driver of our economy when it's the other way around. Government spending is a burden on the private sector. How can you be so delusional?
Give me more credit than that. To me, the problem is much more complicated that the hyperbole we all talk in.
If you say, "You are taxing the private sector to give money to people that aren't working, and creating wasteful spending like the green energy projects - removing that tax burden will cause a boom with new liquidity among earners" - well, that sounds logical.
But, you can also say, "Government spending includes Social Security which is the sole source of income for many americans - which purchase american products and sustain the economy. Furthermore, government employees provide their services as well as invest in the communities around them - cutting them will actually lead to a bigger negative as services and safety nets begin to disappear, and spending will cease entirely from those affected by the cuts, lowering private growth."
Well, there's logic there too. It's further complicated by what a "tax cut/increase" is, what "spending" is, etc. Everyone is great at twisting those buzz words around to their advantage. To me, Ryan is cutting taxes and spending in mostly the wrong places, and I disagree with it.
Yeesh, that was a wall of words. Sorry.
@ Alex
I'd like to think I do. I've certainly read Krugmen, but I've also read Friedman quite a bit.
I'm not a trained economist, but I do have a strong background in tax.
DOS - the real solution is to cut off long-term welfare recipients and scatter them to the 4 winds where God will decide what to do.
... But he is literally -not- cutting spending or taxes for any reasonably forseeable future. He is simply curbing the rate of growth.
@ Sablan
Fair enough - I don't mean to get on your nerves. Thanks for the link, I'll give it a full read when I get a chance (at work now).
Thanks for being patient.
DOS - the real solution is to cut off long-term welfare recipients and scatter them to the 4 winds where God will decide what to do.
I certainly get the cynical desire to do this. The stop babying-make them stand on their own method.
I just can't be that heartless, I guess. Probably why I've got such a bleeding heart - I'll almost always give someone the benefit of the doubt.
Right now, I'd be more concerned with the economic growth and job creation. To me, any spending cuts, especially now, is going to shoot those goals right in the foot. I'd like to see targetted spending in order to create sustainable growth...then we'll focus on the short term deficiet, then the long term debt.
This is a big part of the reason that we are in trouble. Spend, spend, spend! Doesn't matter on what, and to whom, just spend, spend, spend, and, magically, we will come out of the recession.
Of course, it hasn't worked. Some $5 trillion and 5% of GDP in additional spending over the last 3 1/2 years, and we are still churning around at the bottom of a recession. And, so, the liberal/progressive solution to all this, to the inability of spending to bring us out of the recession? You guessed it: Spend, spend, spend!! We just haven't spent enough yet. if 25% of GDP for the federal government isn't enough, we just need to up the spending level.
The problem for those like Dose of Insanity, who keep pushing this, well, insanity,is that it has never worked. If they just repeat the mantra of Spend, Spend, Spend!, somehow this time it is going to work. Didn't help FDR during the Great Depression, and, and, indeed, probably caused it to be greatly lengthened and maybe even deepened.
It is repeated like accepted wisdom, a matter of uncontroverted faith really, this idea that we have to increase spending during a recession, without any real evidence to support it. But, even if it were true, wouldn't where the money was spent matter? Not of course to Nancy Pelosi, but in reality? Should paying one group of people to dig ditches and another group to fill them in work to get us out of a recession? Should paying people not to work get us out of a recession? Should shoveling hundreds of billions of dollars (if not more) to political cronies get us out of a recession? Should driving up energy and food costs work to get us out of a recession?
Dose of Sanity said...
To me, Ryan is cutting taxes and spending in mostly the wrong places, and I disagree with it.
How would you know?
You haven't read Ryan's plan.
alan markus
The point is to talk the truth, rather than some nonsense about how conservative Ryan is.
You could also look at David Stockman's article in the Times today.
www.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/opinion/paul-ryans-fairy-tale-budget-plan.html
But, you can also say, "Government spending includes Social Security which is the sole source of income for many americans -
And therein lies the problem. It wasn't intended to be the sole source of income for many Americans.
Furthermore, government employees provide their services as well as invest in the communities around them -
Using that logic would it not follow that we could lift ourselves out of this recession by making everyone a government emoloyee?
Dose of Sanity said...
But, you can also say, "Government spending includes Social Security which is the sole source of income for many americans - which purchase american products and sustain the economy. Furthermore, government employees provide their services as well as invest in the communities around them - cutting them will actually lead to a bigger negative as services and safety nets begin to disappear, and spending will cease entirely from those affected by the cuts, lowering private growth."
Well, there's logic there too
There is actually no logic there at all.
Because if there were, we would simply pay all the elderly & unemployed to be government employees and have a roaring economy.
Fifty-four percent (54%) of Democrats give Ryan unfavorable marks, and only 18% view Romney’s selection as a good one.
I wonder what the historical correlation (if known) is between opposing-party "they made a good choice" opinion and victory for the ticket in question?
And is it symmetrical, or do the two sides vary in the clarity of their analysis?
(Contra Tank, that list is not exactly compelling. But I'm not a "conservative" - let alone a pacifist one.
The inclusion of the war as Obviously Not Conservative indicates the author is a strain of conservative that is... perhaps not quite mainstream?
Because it sure seems plausibly "conservative" to declare war on Afghanistan, and even Iraq. Nor does "conservative" policy require "exit dates" - that's a modern... non-conservative innovation to warfighting, and a terrible idea.
Who's this Vox Day person and why does he think anyone's fooled by that?)
cutting them will actually lead to a bigger negative as services and safety nets begin to disappear, and spending will cease entirely from those affected by the cuts, lowering private growth."
Note that the silly drone can't deal with the fact that the stimulus didn't do anything.
Silly Drone will just repeat the same mantra.
Silly Drone is wholly ignorant of basic economics.
How would you know?
You haven't read Ryan's plan.
I've read his posting about it, his highlights, and his summary.
What I haven't read is what deductions he would cut, the amount of spending he would reduce, if he is doing full rollbacks of the tax code pre-green energy breaks, what it means to "stop funding corporate welfare" re Fannie, how he expects to balance the budget by slashing tax cuts without corrosponding revenue increases, how much and when he'll cap medicare - and who will pay when those seniors look for care, what cutting the tax rates for corporations means without tax breaks, what it means to end 6 brackets into 2, what the portions of the IRC that relate to the capital gains rate will do when it is dropped to 0, how his medicaid portions will relate to Obamacare, etc.
Maybe some or all that information isn't in the actual bill. It's just a lot there I think is freaking stupid, that's all.
For alan and Sigivald, tell me what is conservative about any of these votes.
-Voted YES on TARP (2008)
-Voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008)
-Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
-Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)
-Voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)
-Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
-Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)
-Voted YES on Head Start Act (2007)
-Voted YES on No Child Left Behind Act (2001)
-Voted YES on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
These are not the votes of a small gov't conservative.
Vox Day? Try google. He has a website, and the list was compiled by one of his commenters.
Entitlements and welfare consume the lion's share of the Federal budget. We can halve the defense budget and reinstate Clinton era taxes and we are still facing close to a trillion dollar deficit.
Dose of Sanity said...
Right now, I'd be more concerned with the economic growth and job creation. To me, any spending cuts, especially now, is going to shoot those goals right in the foot. I'd like to see targetted spending in order to create sustainable growth
Note: US federal spending fell to 18.2% of GDP in 1999 from 22.3% in 1991 yet GDP growth averaged 3.8% in 1999.
Oh well, you'll carry on with your "logic" (which is really a wish against reality) and those wishes get you through the day.
Dose of Sanity said...
I've read his posting about it, his highlights, and his summary.
Really? Where?
Because if you did, you wouldn't be posting so many silly fabrications.
The Obama people gave away the game early, for those who were listening. They said that it was important to not let a crisis go to waste. And, that is what they have done with the recession - not let it go to waste, as they have enriched their friends, families, and cronies, while beggaring the rest of us to pay for that and for their liberal visions of an urban sustainable environmentally conscious carbon neutral workers' paradise Utopia.
Obama and his top people, the top Dems in Congress (probably including Pelosi, but not sure there), etc. are onto the game. They yell Spend, Spend, Spend! as the way to get out of the recession, but are looting the till as they do so. They know that a lot of that spending isn't going anywhere productive - rather, it is all a cover for their looting. And, those like Dose of Insanity are just dumb or naive enough to believe them.
What must be remembered is that Lord Keynes proposed increased very short term spending to help out in a very limited situation (which has become increasingly less likely to apply since then), and that budgets needed to be balanced fairly rapidly. Permanently increasing the baseline of federal spending by 5% of GDP was the furthest thing from what he had in mind, but that is precisely what the Dems have done here, all in the name of Keynesian Economics.
You can only run a deficit higher than your growth rate for so long. There is only so much wealth in society. If your deficit is lower than your growth rate, then you can have enough new wealth every year to run a perpetual deficit. However, if you exceed the growth rate than you will run out of liquid wealth at some point.... When it’s all tapped out, then the decline will come fast (i.e. Greece). First interest rates will rise rapidly as the government has to offer more to borrow. Then the whole portfolio of outstanding debt will “reprice” to the higher rates and people will suffer massive losses on their debt holdings only exacerbating the decline. The Fed could intervene by printing money, but that only spreads the paid around via massive inflation.
We ran a debt to GDP ratio over 100% following WWII. However, there was a plan to cut spending and we did massively following the war. Today Obama has no plan to cut the red ink. He just proposes more spending.
In the 4th century AD, citizens of Rome used to wander about gawking at the great achievements of the city - the coliseum, the aqueducts, and wondered who built such things. Because none of it was built in their living memory. That is our future, unless we reform our own government.
Note that the silly drone can't deal with the fact that the stimulus didn't do anything.
See: this is what I mean about simple logic. They say economy is at x point, we got a stimulus, economy is at x point, or x point + 1.
But, this entirely discounts what would have happened in the abscence of the stimulus. There is no way to prove that the economy might have been at X-5 without the stimulus.
Don't bother trying to argue or prove otherwise, you can't. It's possible you are entirely correct and it did nothing, and it's possible I'm entirely correct and it boosted spending and saved the economy.
Reality is probably somewhere in between.
Oh and by the way, ObamaCare cuts $818 billion from Medicare Part A from 2014-2023.
I love how the left is busy screeching about what a bad idea ObamaCare is.
Oh, wait...
Note: US federal spending fell to 18.2% of GDP in 1999 from 22.3% in 1991 yet GDP growth averaged 3.8% in 1999.
With a multivariate problem, you can't cite previous examples without accounting for all other variables - unless you say we had identical economy conditions from 1991 to 1999 as we did from 2001 to present. Does that make sense?
Not all spending is good, not all cuts are good. But when the problem is that everyone is sitting on any reserves they get, spending to me seems to be the logical way out.
Dose of Sanity said...
See: this is what I mean about simple logic. They say economy is at x point, we got a stimulus, economy is at x point, or x point + 1.
In other words: You don't like facts and data.
But, this entirely discounts what would have happened in the abscence of the stimulus
Note: I will happily point out what the Obama Administration Council of Economic Advisors said it would do and would not do.
Don't bother trying to argue or prove otherwise, you can't.
Actually I can, because I don't live in the silly, dipshit pretend land you do.
@ Sloan
Well phrased post. I completely agree with you. We just disagree that at which point is unsustainable.
I'd cite Japan's Debt to GDP ratio to show we're not at an unsustainable level yet.
You fear the right? Why? You should have been fearing the left since Das Kapital.
Dose of Sanity said...
With a multivariate problem, you can't cite previous examples without accounting for all other variables
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
I bet we do!!!
I mean, in your "logic" that idiotic assertion allows you do say:
To me, any spending cuts, especially now, is going to shoot those goals right in the foot. I'd like to see targetted spending in order to create sustainable growth
Don't worry dummy, you don't know what it all means anyway. You're just here flinging bullshit.
"But, this entirely discounts what would have happened in the abscence of the stimulus. There is no way to prove that the economy might have been at X-5 without the stimulus."
-- No, but we can measure success/failure by the criteria set out. The most famous one is what the unemployment rate would be with the stimulus and without.
Also, you're right. We can't tell what would have happened without the stimulus. The economy may have gotten worse than it is now -- OR -- better. All we can ask is: Did the stimulus deliver what it promised?
In the key, most hyped metric (reducing unemployment), it failed.
Dose of Sanity said...
I'd cite Japan's Debt to GDP ratio to show we're not at an unsustainable level yet.
Mind you, from the author of:
With a multivariate problem, you can't cite previous examples without accounting for all other variables
Don't worry, we all know you're just here flinging feces.
Idiot.
So when the Silly Drone gets data she doesn't like, Silly Drone makes comments like:
With a multivariate problem, you can't cite previous examples without accounting for all other variables - unless you say we had identical economy conditions from 1991 to 1999 as we did from 2001 to present.
When Silly Drone gets more data she doesn't like, Silly Drone refutes the comment made 3 minutes earlier with:
I'd cite Japan's Debt to GDP ratio to show we're not at an unsustainable level yet.
Why it is almost as if Silly Drone is incoherent and full of shit or something.
McCain was a centrist (voted against W tax cuts and Medicare Part D) and Obama was a big government liberal (major recession and out of control debt so let's tack on another entitlement to invest in our future). Give me a break with your centrist bullshit. You voted for the left wing bullshit artist who heaped another $5 trillion in debt on the fire. To fix this liberalism mess, there is no more money for the centrist programs. Ryan's plan, by keeping most of the boomers on current Medicare isn't even realistic. It's way too centrist for what the US can afford.
Don't bother trying to argue or prove otherwise, you can't. It's possible you are entirely correct and it did nothing, and it's possible I'm entirely correct and it boosted spending and saved the economy.
So the safest conclusion is we pissed away $750 billion in stimulus and since we aren't sure it worked let's try it again.
But wait, we basically are because we are running a trillion plus dollar deficit and have been since Obama took office. In other words we are spending a trillion more than when Bush left and so far have bupkis to show for it.
But in the spirit of bi partisanship, I will concede for the sake of argument that extra trillion a year would contribute to real growth. Can you concede that the Administration is not spending it correctly?
In other words: You don't like facts and data.
I love facts and data - I'm just weary about the conclusions drawn from them.
Fact - the economy grew slowly after the stimulus.
Conclusion - the stimulus didn't work.
I'm happy to agree with the fact, but not the conclusion.
@ Sablan
No, but we can measure success/failure by the criteria set out. The most famous one is what the unemployment rate would be with the stimulus and without.
That's fair - by their standards it failed entirely. But that's because their standards were freaking stupid.
Can you concede that the Administration is not spending it correctly?
Ab-so-freaking-lutely.
Dose - a lot of your questions exhibit an adherence to liberal orthodoxy over reality. The obvious answer to your question of how to raise revenues when you cut taxes is that it actually happens, and that raising taxes often works the reverse. The fallacy that you, and a lot of Dems, fall into is called "static analysis". It assumes that tax rates have little, if any effects on behavior, and, thus, that multiplying tax rates by income will inevitably calculate taxes raised, no matter the tax levels. It has also been effectively demolished, time after time, by empirical data.
Dose isn't the only lib/prog accepting this flawed premise. Remember a week or two ago, when an Obama super-PAC tried to explain how Romney's suggestion of cutting tax rates across the board would result in increased taxes for the middle class? It all depended on their static analysis assumptions, and that Romney would have to turn around and tax the middle class after all to compensate for the tax cuts that he was giving the rich (and, more importantly really for their analysis, the poor).
Er... why don't you use as a fact that the employment data did not track with what the White House estimated, and in fact, unemployment was worse than they estimated?
That seems more important than some mystical "economy grew" fact. One is hard numbers, the other is not (a growing economy while shedding jobs and everyone, being on average, being poorer? How is that happening?)
So unless we mimic the exact same economic conditions from 1991 to 1999 as we did from 2001 to present, we simply can not accept that lower government spending doesn't harm GDP.
Unless we look to Japan, a tiny island with a homogeneous population, to compare to America.
It must be fun being so stupid.
Dose of Sanity said...
That's fair - by their standards it failed entirely. But that's because their standards were freaking stupid.
Yes!
Becuase what do those morons on the Council of Economic advisors know anyway!?
We have a silly, dipshit Internet commentor who never took an econ class to tell us!
Dose of Sanity said...
I love facts and data
Actually you don't. Because you take to the Internet to type stupid lies.
I'm just weary about the conclusions drawn from them.
Because the conclusions never concur with your idiotic worldview.
Dose of Insanity - I think that the fact that some $4-5 trillion ago, that Obama, his Administration, and the Dems running Congress at the time promised us that with all that additional spending, that unemployment would be well under 8% as a result, is indicative of how good their projections were. Of course, it hasn't been below that 8% since then, and the most logically thing to blame that level of unemployment on is their (mis)spending of all that money.
Figure it this way - either they lied, or they didn't know whether all that stimulus money would help or hurt, and spent it anyway. Either should, in a rationale world, disqualify them from spending any more of our money.
Not only that, but the stimulus was not handled in the way we were told it would be. Remember: Timely, targeted temporary?
Can you concede that the Administration is not spending it correctly?
Ab-so-freaking-lutely.
Well. Suffice to say that since the current course isn't working, I cant see why we should not try Ryan's plan.
"Fifty-four percent (54%) of Democrats give Ryan unfavorable marks, and only 18% view Romney’s selection as a good one."
Of course he is unfavorable to the Dems: Romney is more likely to win is totally bad for the Obama Dems.
How many of the 18% will flip? And those no opinion 28%?
No, but we can measure success/failure by the criteria set out. The most famous one is what the unemployment rate would be with the stimulus and without.
I agree. We spent an extra $4-5 trillion, and unemployment went up, if anything, and did so for an almost unprecedented long time. The logical conclusion is that record government spending equals record unemployment. (I said "almost unprecedented" because the last attempt at anything of this magnitude was during the 1930s, when all that government spending plausibly lengthened the Great Depression by maybe a decade).
Seeing "Great Depression" reminded me: When was the last time anyone heard the phrase "Great Recession" that was so popular circa 2009-2010?
"
I'd cite Japan's Debt to GDP ratio to show we're not at an unsustainable level yet. "
What Japan shows us is what "stimulus" can accomplish. Japan bought the whole Krugman spending argument and spent until debt was 100% of GDP. They have been in a sever recession since 1990 with no signs of improvement.
They also are in a demographic decline, which makes it worse.
Ryan tries to split Medicare into two plans. One, for those over 55, is the same and that is why it tales years for his budget to balance. The second part is for those under 55 which will cap expenditures by changing it to a voucher program. This is what the French do to control costs. It differs from the French plan, which I prefer, but it is the same idea.
No doubt Ryan's ideas will be reworked in the legislative process. His tax plans should include a cap on mortgage deduction, for example. That will be a fight but one he might win.
The ,ain thing is that he HAS a plan. the details can be worked out. Simpson-Bowles had a plan. Let's choose that one. Obama has no plan but to lie.
I'd cite Japan's Debt to GDP ratio to show we're not at an unsustainable level yet. "
This is the equivalent of saying the skydiver who jumped without his parachute isn't dead yet because he's still falling.
His tax plans should include a cap on mortgage deduction, for example. That will be a fight but one he might win.
Any tax plan must include broadening the tax base, yes that means getting lower and middle class to start footing more of the bill. We cannot continue to rely on the top 20% footing 65% of the Federal tax burden.
Re "naming"
Anyone who is really Far Right is hard to label, since the next category has a monopoly on pejorative terms. Infra dig.
Anyone who is Right of Center must be called an "extreme" Conservative. Or "arch", "far-out", or “ultra”, That is, when he/she is not called "paranoid", "anti-intellectual", or "stupid right-wing, antediluvian troglodyte". To be marginalized or feared, as the situation calls for.
Anyone who is a Marxist or Socialist must be called a "Liberal" or a "Progressive". To be excused, though attention must be paid
Anyone who is Liberal or a Progressive must be called "Centrist", "Moderate", or "Independent". That is, when he/she is not called “brilliant” or “a healer”, “a unifier”. To be revered & followed.
@ Althouse
"It's rough for people like me who fear both the right and the left. "
Yet when have you voted for the right?
This is the equivalent of saying the skydiver who jumped without his parachute isn't dead yet because he's still falling.
Analogy of the day. I love this.
Er... didn't she say she voted for Walker?
Fifty-four percent (54%) of Democrats give Ryan unfavorable marks, and only 18% view Romney’s selection as a good one.
Isn;t it true that many schools in the USA have terrible terrible results?
Don;t many of theose schools lie within areas controlled by the DEmocrat party and teacher's union?
That helps explain the numbers.
As for being "conservative" ... at this point trying to set up a real budget and live within it would make anyone look uber conservative.
The Dems are putting Ryan on the rack for being pro-life and pushing granny (me?) over the cliff, the conservatives are putting him on the rack for voting for the Patriot Act, TARP, the stimuli, Part D, and kids and the poor entitlements.
(Sorry TANK -- voting for the wars does not make one a liberal.)
He still makes more sense than a lot of the smoke being blown our way for years now.
We have a lying liar as POTUS.
Not much to think about here.
Bruce H.
In the futuer I'm gonna use your comment about taxes to my e-mail groups.
I've been told that my "it's the tax take, stupid (not the tax rate)" is Bumpersticker-ese.
A shame since it's so pithy.
My example is the cigarette tax in NYC. If it's, say, $5 per pack & $5BB in revenue is raised, then raising it to $6 per pack does not produce $6BB for your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. QED….
It does help the Mafia, though.
OOPS, make that "future"
BTW, Prof A, maybe typos are, along with the fact that I'm old and gray and nodding by the fire, a sign that I need cataract surgery now, but your non-robot prompts are often hard to see.
This is not a conservative record, definitely not very conservative
Thanks for the laughs.
Citing a vote for Iraq war funding in 2003 as an example of "not being a conservative" was the best one, in case you're curious.
I'd cite Japan's Debt to GDP ratio to show we're not at an unsustainable level yet.
Is Japan's current debt load actually sustainable? Their credit rating keeps being downgraded.
... do my eyes deceive me, or by putting Ryan on the ticket, has that opened the door to Romney putting out ads hitting Obama about cutting Medicare funding? Who was it talking about how Obama/Biden were playing chess while Romney/Ryan were playing checkers? Getting them to open up Medicare and getting the Sunday news shows/media to have to push back the most egregious lies about Ryan's plan now forces them to have to talk about Romney's counter punch.
See, that's really playing chess.
To make it clear, just like Romney had Bain ads in the can -months- in advance of Obama's first assault (effectively blunting it and turning a negative into a positive), he had a plan of response ready for the attack on Ryan. Hell, Romney and Ryan had a plan for Ryan to avoid the media to sneak out of his house through the woods in his backyard to outfox them and get to the announcement without being seen.
The Ryan pick is quite possibly the best VP pick in a long, long time. Give it a month or two and that 43 percent will tick up.
Per the Onion: Admit it. Paul Ryan scares you.
It is so very easy to be soft-hearted when spending other people's money. Oh, wait...
I think that makes you a cold-hearted jerk. When you are "helping" do you mind all the taking of property by threat of force?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dose of Sanity @ 11:34am
DOS - the real solution is to cut off long-term welfare recipients and scatter them to the 4 winds where God will decide what to do.
I certainly get the cynical desire to do this. The stop babying-make them stand on their own method.
I just can't be that heartless, I guess. Probably why I've got such a bleeding heart - I'll almost always give someone the benefit of the doubt.
8/14/12 11:34 AM
When you are "helping" do you mind all the taking of property by threat of force?
Naw, I'm pretty comfortable with the United States Consitution. Are you not?
Though, not so comfortable with spelling and spell check it seems.
Constitution. There.
I certainly get the cynical desire to do this. The stop babying-make them stand on their own method.
I just can't be that heartless, I guess. Probably why I've got such a bleeding heart - I'll almost always give someone the benefit of the doubt.
You're not giving them the benefit of the doubt.
You're PATRONIZING them.
It's not the same thing.
The "Ryan plan," whatever it is, is a proposed statute that Ryan could, and did, get the House to vote in favor of, and if it was possible to get it on the floor for a vote in the Senate, it quite possibly would pass there too, and then we would at least have something.
It is not going to come to the floor for a vote in the Senate as long as Harry Reid is Majority Leader, but after that, who knows?
But is it necessarily what Ryan would do if God appointed him emperor? Probably not.
People who fear both left and right are simply confused.
People who fear that the Democratic Party has already been taken over by the Very Angry Left are merely reacting rationally to the existing state of affairs. Those like Russ Feingold or Evan Bayh have been marginalized and pushed to the side.
The GOP certainly wouldn't have chosen Romney as its nominee months before the convention if it were similarly in thrall to the Very Far Right.
Dose of Sanity said...
In other words: You don't like facts and data.
I love facts and data - I'm just weary about the conclusions drawn from them.
Fact - the economy grew slowly after the stimulus.
Conclusion - the stimulus didn't work.
I'm happy to agree with the fact, but not the conclusion.
It didn't work based on what Urkel and his economic gang said it was going to do. Not to mention the level of growth rate to the GDP to pull us out of this economic black hole is no where in the plan the the administration said it was going to be. The US economy to my last recalling requires at least 3% of sustained growth per quarter for at least 8 to 12 quarters in order to break even.
Oft times correlation isn't causation, but in the case of the stimulus and the conclusions it brought forth are.
Dose of Sanity said...
When you are "helping" do you mind all the taking of property by threat of force?
Naw, I'm pretty comfortable with the United States Consitution. Are you not?
As a stand-alone document that outlines how government is supposed to be set up and what it's roll is and also what our rights are, I'm all 10000000% for it.
How it appears that it's been interpreted over time to mean different things to different administrations and SCOTUS era's? Not so much. It's being turned into toilet paper.
Original Mike said...
"Right now, deep spending cuts would create a tragic cycle."
He's not even proposing cuts. He proposes increasing spending at a rate slower than President Profligate.
That however is seen by the belt-way bureau-weenies as a cut.
I'm happy to agree with the fact, but not the conclusion.
And you say that because we don't know what would have happened in the unknowable event that the federal government had taken a much different course of action, such as any of the range of options suggested by its critics who had predicted disaster.
So you would agree that just as the stimulus spending may have averted far worse unemployment than we have now, it's possible that the 2003 Iraq war prevented a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East. Right? And George W Bush deserves as much credit for having arguably saved the earth as Obama does for not overseeing the worst of all possible economies.
Fact - the economy grew slowly after the stimulus.
Conclusion - the stimulus didn't work.
The problem is that you're missing the other relevant fact: post-stimulus economic growth (and unemployment) were worse than promised by proponents of the stimulus.
That is why it is objectively true that the stimulus failed: it did not achieve its stated measure of success.
I guess you could argue that this Keynesian stimulus is inexact and unpredictable, but that's not what stimulus proponents were saying in 2009. If they had said "we need the better part of a trillion dollars, but we have no idea how much it'll help" the bill never would have passed.
"This is the equivalent of saying the skydiver who jumped without his parachute isn't dead yet because he's still falling." - Colonel Angus
Love that analogy.
That's a keeper.
You know what they say about the most dangerous place is sitting in the middle of the road. Sometimes you have to choose your side. Go ahead, choose. Pose a poll about it.
Dear Ann,
You fear the left and the right. But the real bad thing, the thing everyone should fear the most is a moderate. They have no principles, no beliefs. Kind of like lawyers are amoral.
"(a growing economy while shedding jobs and everyone, being on average, being poorer? How is that happening?)"
Well, the Obamas are doing much better for themselves now than they were four years ago, and likely will continue to rake in the millions. Worked great for Bill Clinton.
Senator Reid is doing great in this economy!
You see it's politician's economy! If you want to make money, get yourself elected to some office.
Ann fears the left and right, not realizing she is a victim of leftist extremism.
I love facts and data - I'm just weary about the conclusions drawn from them.
Fact - the economy grew slowly after the stimulus.
Conclusion - the stimulus didn't work.
We threw $100 Billion in gravel to fill the pot hole in the road. And the hole was kinda filled. Success!!!
OK..
Republicans are Conservative, Democrats are Liberal. Neither is extreme, both are just what they are supposed to be.
Not being a Moderate does not make you extreme.
Far Left or Right, would be people who are not in the mainstream of either party. IE embracing free abortion no questions asked, and allowing post birth abortion, race and gender selection, and forcing everyone to pay for it, is extreme left. Banning ALL abortion no matter what, regardless of who pays for it, is extreme right. These are examples of social issues which define extreme. Only one example.
Policy is totally different.
Govt is either Conservative or Liberal in issues that apply to the Constitution. Govt is bound to the Constitution. Any Policy that tries to side step this document in any way, is extreme.
What part of Ryan's policy do you consider extreme?
Which part of Obama's policy do you consider extreme?
BTW, MSM doesn't dictate mainstream. To me, they aren't even real people.
No one has answered me yet how we can say things like "economy grew." How is that a true statement when: There are fewer people in the work force; unemployment is roughly the same (or higher); people, on average, are poorer than they were previously?
In what world do we consider that a success?
Ann -- "It's rough for people like me who fear both the right and the left."
Ann fears the right because where the right is in control, gays can't marry. And dope smoking isn't legal. They can't marry or legally smoke dope most places the left controls, but whatever.
She fears the left because where the left is in control fiscal chaos and meltdown looms.
Damn. That's a tough choice for the rational person in the middle.
Liberals such as Ann who have at least a vague understanding of economics know that lefties are a train wreck and they eventually destroy everything. But they don't like conservatives because they've been brainwashed into thinking that they are icky.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा