November 2, 2012

"Althouse: If you could write your 'How Obama Lost Me' post in the next 24 hours, the race could come down to your influence!"

Writes Ruth Anne Adams in the comments to the "last 72 hours" post. She adds "But if you're going the way of Colin Powell not so much" and "But if you could at least reveal your voting preference in the next few hours, that could win a wager or seven."

I think she's misremembering what the "lost me" posts of the past were about. I started blogging in 2004, a presidential election year, and, after much coverage of the election, including a commitment to something I called "cruel neutrality," on September 26th, I wrote a post called "How Kerry lost me." This wasn't me explaining why I was going to vote against Kerry. It was me acknowledging how I felt and realizing that I could mine the blog archive to discover where that feeling came from.
Yet I find myself expressing an increasing amount of hostility to Kerry, so I thought I'd go back and trace the arc of my antagonism through my various posts.
It was a bloggy project, solving a mystery about myself by taking advantage of the archive. For example, I found the wellspring of my antagonism in a single remark: "You're not listening" (said to a man who asked him what his position on Iraq was, as if the man had simply failed to pay attention to some supposedly previously stated position, when I too had been waiting for Kerry to answer that question). And I found what was, to me, "his final, fatal mistake" (disrespecting Allawi!), which prompted me to write the "lost me" post.

In 2008, I wrote "How McCain lost me," which may have created the impression that "lost me" posts are an Althouse blog tradition. That post was written after the election, but — I said at the time — "it's the same in that I'm mining my blog archive to try to understand how my resistance to the candidate formed and hardened and caused me to vote for the other man."
I know that I voted against McCain. Up through August, I genuinely didn't know which candidate I'd vote for, but I knew I was taking more shots at Obama and therefore giving the impression that I favored McCain. I didn't trust Obama, and I feared (and still fear) what Obama would do with a Democratic Congress. McCain was a more familiar character, less fun to write about, and he was also the underdog. But by mid-October, I knew that unless something big happened, I would vote for Obama. It was nothing new that Obama did. I didn't start liking him more, and I never got caught up in the Obama lovefest.
It was a lot of work to mine that archive. Oddly, despite all that work, my commenters have accused me for the last 4 years of having fallen for Obama delusions. But the point of the work was not to drum anything into your head. It was, as it had been in 2004, an effort to see where my decision happened. That's what I'm interested in: How people think, where, in the emotional/reasoning mind of an individual, does a decision take place? The blog archive gave me the ability to examine that. What I wrote in the "lost me" posts of the last 2 elections was not anything like a newspaper's endorsement of a candidate or an argument designed to persuade anyone to agree with me. It has more to do with my professional interest in how judges make decisions: How does the human mind work?

Why haven't I done a "lost me" post this time around? I haven't had the experience of noticing that there is a mystery that I could solve by delving into old blog posts. As you can see in that last indented paragraph, above, I didn't trust Obama, and I feared what he would do with a Democratic Congress. We all saw what he did with a Democratic Congress. He let Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have their way with him. It was horrible. It led to the Tea Party and the trouncing Democrats took in 2010. I've felt no connection to the Democratic Party since then. Of course, I don't like half of what the Republicans stand for, but I've still voted for some of them, notably Ron Johnson and (twice!) Scott Walker, because... what choice do I have? The Democrats have been leading us into financial ruin.

If I could have been assured that the GOP would control both houses of Congress, I might have thought Obama would be good. I like balance, moderation, and pragmatism. If one of the hardcore righties had won the Republican nomination, I would probably have gone for Obama. But Mitt Romney got the nomination, which is what I had been hoping for (after Mitch Daniels decided not to run). It was time to pay attention again to Obama The Candidate, and his campaign centered on vilifying Mitt Romney in the most inane Occupy-Wall-Street style that was completely alienating to me. Romney seamlessly transitioned from being my choice in the primaries to being my presumptive choice for President. I remained open to Obama. Obama could have won me.

Then came Benghazi, and a door closed.

483 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   401 – 483 of 483
Kate said...

I can't see anyone ever voting for Obama, for anything, after the 4 years we have had

...before Benghazi, or not.

Patrick said...

Well, Obama saved us from a potential Great Depression. If Bush/Greenspan had been at the helm I have very little doubt things would have been much worse.

I think we disagree on what caused the great recession. I suppose it is arguable that it would have been worse under Bush, but he wasn't running.

Bin Laden and Khadaffi killed - yeah, but that has very little to do with Obama's half hearted effort on national security. "Gutsy call?" I doubt any President in history would've made a different call.

Lower labor participation now than in January, 2009.

You can keep harping on Bush, and I'll agree, he wasn't top 10 Presidential material - profligate spending and all. The way the President campaigned was that Bush 43 was the worst ever (jury is out). By that standard, even if he is better, that is not very good.

But guess what: You're not gonna vote for Mitt Romney, and I'm not gonna vote for the President.

I am off to blow off some steam in Northern WI, mostly arguing with my brother who plans to vote for the President. I'll refer him to you if he needs pointers.

Have a great weekend, all.




Pastafarian said...

aReasonable: "US exports last year were a record 13.8% of GDP..."

Yes, as Obama said in the last debate, with a shitty smirk on his face: "Financial conditions have actually favored exports..."

Because his reckless spending without actual budgets devalued our currency in the biggest confiscation of personal wealth in the history of the world. Devalue our currency, and it's cheaper for other countries to buy our stuff. No fucking shit, Sherlock.

It's a little like when Obama said that we were using less energy than we have in the past...but didn't mention that this was true because the economy is in a depression. He trumpeted that great success with the same shit-eating smirk.

I wonder, reasonable: When you type out your vacuous talking points, is your face frozen in that same smug smirk?

People Died, The President Lied said...

"I still want to know what Bush polic(y/ies) caused the 2008 collapse."

And while you are at it (phx!), list the Obama/democrat policies that have ameliorated the economic situation since.

We are waiting.

Methadras said...

I never care about how legal citizens vote. It's their right whether to vote or not. It's their right to vote for whomever they wish to vote for. The reasons for that vote are irrelevant. It's the vote that counts. Honestly, do you guys really care what it took for Althouse to come to her conclusions in the voting booth? The teeth gnashing at her choices is a little embarrassing don't you think?

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Original Mike said...
I still want to know what Bush polic(y/ies) caused the 2008 collapse


Failing to deal with the property bubble, which was well known and much discussed, long before the collapse and failing to explain to the country that the falling real incomes they were experiencing under his presidency could not be compensated for by increasing personal debt and treating the equity in their house like a personal piggy bank.

In other words, he completely failed to provide both economic and moral leadership.

Marshall Rose said...

He rescued the auto industry, which was absolutely essential in order to save the US manufacturing base.

Which still owes what? 40-50 Billion dollars to the taxpayer, some rescue. They are still as badly off as they were before, just kicked the can down the road.

Note that Ford Motor company is part of the Auto Industry as well, and is doing quite well without a single dime of public money.

On his watch both bin Laden and Qaddafi were killed.

Big Deal, any and all presidents in the history of the country would have made the call to send in the Seals. (Most would have made it earlier if reports that he denied it several times prior are true)

He husbanded through universal healthcare

Universal Healthcare? I think you may not understand the law as it is written. It does not provide universal healthcare, it forces every breathing human in the country to buy insurance or pay a penalty. (if you cannot understand the difference...)

Unemployment is moving downward rather than up as it was under Bush

And yet there are fewer people employed now as a percentage of the population than when he took office. How dow we reconcile those two statistics? Easy, Unemployment only measures those that are actively looking for work and ignores those that have given up. (this was widely touted during the Bush years as 'jobless recovery')

US exports last year were a record 13.8% of GDP, the largest ever percentage of GDP. Increasing exports is the single most important element in rebuilding the economy, much more important than giving tax breaks to guys who can already afford every imaginable luxury item.

And yet Obama's rate of Growth in Exports is still below that of Bush (even including the recession in Bush's stats)

Even if we only got more of the same it would be a lot better than what we got through eight long years of the Bush presidency, which was a litany of economic and foreign policy incompetence.

Well it's a really good thing then that Bush isn't running for President this year!

Fish

Barrel

Fini

sakredkow said...

It is far worse then if Obama had done nothing.

Two people have said that on this page now.

hombre said...

"Reasonable" wrote: Ironically, one of your fell economic truthers provided just such a link earlier in the thread in a painfully inept attempt to counter my comments on the extend of GDP decline under Bush.

This reference obviously ducks the question.

So I guess this means you can't offer any evidence that the relevant data was unavailable to the Obots at the time the estimates in the chart occurred.

Why am I not surprised.

sakredkow said...

And while you are at it (phx!), list the Obama/democrat policies that have ameliorated the economic situation since.

Sure, I believe the stimulus and the bank and auto bailouts.

mark said...

@phx "We come from two different worlds."

Same world. I don't think you understand how it works yet. Complex adaptive systems self stabilize over time.

Easy example: tachycardia and the pacemaker. Doctors thought they could "fix" rapid heart beats by putting in a pacemaker. It 'should' drive the heart at the 'right' pace. And it worked for bradycardia.

It killed patients.

They made the problem worse by applying their fix into a system they didn't understand.

For example: my application to GM would be there shouldn't be a GM. The entire system would be more stable with Chevy, GMC, Pontiac, etc as separate competing companies. Having several smaller components allow the entire system to respond and survive disruptions. Think of dropping a clay pot versus a bag of sand.

We had structures in place to handle failing banks, failing car companies, and a collapsing home market. Those structures had been proven to work.

Doing nothing = let the systems you have in place do their job. THAT, would have been better then what Obama did.

Would it have been painful? Sure. But, less then what we see now.

Original Mike said...

" Failing to deal with the property bubble, which was well known and much discussed, long before the collapse and failing to explain to the country that the falling real incomes they were experiencing under his presidency could not be compensated for by increasing personal debt and treating the equity in their house like a personal piggy bank."

Does "I'd like to roll the dice" ring a bell?

Bush and the Republicans tried to reign in Fannie and Fredie. I will give you that they didn't try hard enough when they ran into opposition. I absolutely blame him for that. But these same loose money policies are continuing to this day.

Marshall Rose said...

Failing to deal with the property bubble, which was well known and much discussed, long before the collapse and failing to explain to the country that the falling real incomes they were experiencing under his presidency could not be compensated for by increasing personal debt and treating the equity in their house like a personal piggy bank.

I'm genuinly curious about how the President of the United States is supposed to have accomplished these items?

Bush on multiple occassions tried to reign in Fannie and Freddie, to no avail.

And just how is any President supposed to control the finances of individual people, and the decisions they make, other than seizing control of the checkbooks of each person in the country?

How would Obama accomplish these things that you fault Bush for?

People Died, The President Lied said...

"Failing to deal with the property bubble, which was well known and much discussed, long before the collapse and failing to explain to the country that the falling real incomes they were experiencing under his presidency could not be compensated for by increasing personal debt and treating the equity in their house like a personal piggy bank.

In other words, he completely failed to provide both economic and moral leadership."

Failing to deal with (thwarted by democrats in congress) the property bubble (fueled by the democrat's Community Reinvestment Act) which was well known and much discussed, long before (after) the collapse and failing to explain to the country (ignored by the press and democrats and doubled-down on - see Franklin Raines/Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac) that the (not) falling real incomes they were experiencing under his presidency could not be compensated for (or controlled directly) by increasing personal debt (personal and not a presidential decision) and treating the equity in their house like a personal (that pesky personal responsibility thing) piggy bank.

In other words, he completely failed to provide cradle-to-grave absolution of responsibility we enjoy under single-party democrat socialist rule.

//fixed

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

hombre said...
"Reasonable" wrote: Ironically, one of your fell economic truthers provided just such a link earlier in the thread in a painfully inept attempt to counter my comments on the extend of GDP decline under Bush.

This reference obviously ducks the question.


No it doesn't. It just proves how lazy you are.

So I looked just to prove how fucking stupid you are.

Chip S. said...
This is from the actual news release announcing final GDP figures for the 4th quarter of 2008 (released on 3/26/09):

Real gross domestic product decreased at an annual rate of 6.3 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008, (that is, from the third quarter to the fourth quarter), according to final estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

The GDP estimates released today are based on more complete source data than were available for the preliminary estimates issued last month. In the preliminary estimates, the decrease in real GDP was 6.2 percent.


I rest my case. You can thank me for my efforts in your next post.

Bob Ellison said...

I propose a limit of two responses to AReasonableMan for every comment he posts. Otherwise it's just ganging up like coyotes on a deer carcass.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

marshall2twr said...
I'm genuinly curious about how the President of the United States is supposed to have accomplished these items?


Show some fucking leadership rather than hope that the shit hits the fan on the next guys watch.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Bob Ellison said...
I propose a limit of two responses to AReasonableMan for every comment he posts. Otherwise it's just ganging up like coyotes on a deer carcass.


I was actually hoping for some smarter posts with actual facts, rather than FOX news talking points.

Seeing Red said...

--If I could have been assured that the GOP would control both houses of Congress, I might have thought Obama would be good. I like balance, moderation, and pragmatism.--

Executive Orders, who needs Congress?

So let it be written, so let it be done.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

marshall2twr said...
Note that Ford Motor company is part of the Auto Industry as well, and is doing quite well without a single dime of public money.


Ford supported the rescue. Let's think what that means. Oh, I get it. The rescue was essential in order to save auto manufacturing. If GM and Chrysler went south and their suppliers went south so did Ford.

Seeing Red said...

--Failing to deal with the property bubble, which was well known and much discussed,---


Barney Frank thought everything was fine, maybe if they didn't stonewall?

People Died, The President Lied said...

"Sure, I believe the stimulus and the bank and auto bailouts."

And I believe in YOU!

The stimulus was a payment to states and unions (!) to temporarily buy time before the inevitable collapse. That means, throwing good money after bad. The only shovel-ready thing was the bullshit, and the president admitted as much, himself. But being a good leftist, he has repeated the lie and you believe it.

The auto bailout was a payment to the unions and payback to the 'greedy' investors and bondholders who got fleeced and turned contract law on its head. Dealerships were closed, and crony capitalism was on display. News flash: the healthiest of the big three today, Ford, did not participate in the bailout. And GM's struggles continue.

As far as the banks are concerned, I don't have a favorite bank but I know the crony capitalism was practiced here as well. I laugh when I hear big government types shouting about Wall St. - The two are in bed with and deserve each other.

Educate yourself phx.

Ned said...

"obama could have had me"

ROFLMAO! Of course, and STILL could! Your critical thinking capacity is way thin. There have been 1000 instances that prove obama is unfit for office...before Benghazi...took willful negligence resulting in murder to get you...just THINK about that...stupid much?

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

marshall2twr said...
How would Obama accomplish these things that you fault Bush for?


By being honest. Obama has acknowledged that real incomes are falling for the middle and working class. He hasn't pretended that delusional economic policies of tax cuts and housing bubbles can solve the problem.

In the current version of the Republican party it is heresy to acknowledge the rapidly growing gap in wealth between the rich and everyone else because this would mean that they might have to do something about it. So Republican economic policy is always built on a lie. And lies can only get you so far in the real world, as Romney is currently demonstrating.

Kirk Parker said...

phx,

"Some of you are just going to have to go out and join a militia if Obama gets reelected."

I happen to live in a damn ageist country that says I'm too old for the militia! WTF?????

Kirk Parker said...

phx,

"Some of you are just going to have to go out and join a militia if Obama gets reelected."

I happen to live in a damn ageist country that says I'm too old for the militia! WTF?????

paul a'barge said...

Obama could have won me.

How unspeakably ... ugly

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

You guys seem to be struggling to find more crazy shit to say about Obama.

I am providing this handy link to help out.

I Callahan said...

Failing to deal with the property bubble, which was well known and much discussed, long before the collapse and failing to explain to the country that the falling real incomes they were experiencing under his presidency could not be compensated for by increasing personal debt and treating the equity in their house like a personal piggy bank.

The above paragraph is so full of holes, it's laughable. Bush tried on SEVERAL OCCASIONS to reign in the ridiculously low standards being pushed by Fan & Fred. When he did, both Dodd and Frank fought tooth and nail.

Nathan Alexander said...

ARM, phx, and Jake Diamond are in the grip of epistemic closure.

At fact, evidence, or truth that doesn't fit their per-determined conclusion is rejected out of hand.

This, Bush is judged by the economic problems at the end of his term only, despite the fact that it was Democrat policies enacted by the Dem-controlled Congress that precipitated the economic collapse.

They cannot face this reality.

So they use the weasel words of "on his watch".

They cannot identify a single policy proposed by bush that could have caused the collapse. They cannot face that bush attempted to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but were blocked by Democrats, including Sen Obama.

They can't face that bush also inherited a recession caused by the collapse of a bubble, and then had the additional difficulty of the 9/11 attacks (brought on by treating terrorism as a criminal act for the previous 8 years), but that Bush's policies, unlike President Obama's, resulted in a decent recovery.

They complain about Bush's deficit, but can't face that even with two wars and the tax cuts, the deficits under Bush were declining as the bush economy kept growing strongly.

Until democrats took over Congress in 2006 with a mandate only to end the war, but preceded to use their control of Congress to screw up the economy.

Deficits exploded under democrat control of Congress.

That is undeniable.

It got worse under President Obama.

That, too, like everything.else I have pointed out, is undeniable and a matter of easily verified history.

But phx, Jake, and ARM don't want to face it, so they will ignore and make flat assertions to the contrary. They cannot point to a single example of a democrat congress improving an economy. They cannot explain how Bush's economic policy made,things worse.

The best they can do is blame bush for not vetoing the democrat policy that ruined the economy.

If democrat policy had any efficacy, the Obama recovery wouldn't be so lousy.

You can look it up: the worse the crash, the hotter the recovery.

Except for Obama.

ARM would have us believe that no one could known. But that doesn't explain how long after the entire situation was known (2 years after taking office), Obama twice declared a recovery summer that failed to materialize. Maybe it isn't that no one could have known, but that Obama and his team aren't very economically smart.

A reasonable person accepts the theory that explains the most observable situations.

Why do Jake, ARM, and phx base all their conclusions onmy series ofmunprovable assumptions?

I Callahan said...

Mother Frickin' Jones? Was the Pravda's website down?

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

I Callahan said...
Bush tried on SEVERAL OCCASIONS


Can you provide some serious evidence for this?

Bush's whole presidency was based on kicking the can down the road. With a bit of luck he would have made it. If the financial crisis had come six months later he would have been home free. He didn't do squat to deal with the country's economic problems.

Nathan Alexander said...

Tax cuts allow people to keep more of the money they earn. Tat provides incentive to work more, and harder. That provides an incentive to open a business, or expand a business.

So tax cuts are often lead to revenue increases.

If you can't understand such a simple, basic socio-economic truth, you really have no standing in an economic discussion at all.

Hint: go look at tax revenue rates from 2001 to 2009.

Explain what caused the changes you see.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

I Callahan said...
Mother Frickin' Jones? Was the Pravda's website down?


I was trying to be helpful. Unfortunately Drudge, Rush and Instapundit don't keep a log of all the crazy shit that they come up with. I guess they might look a bit stupid if it was all collected in one place.

Nathan Alexander said...

ARM,
Here's a handy chart for you:
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=2000_2010&view=1&expand&units=k&fy=fy11&chart=F0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title&state=US&color=c&local=s

Unless you are trying to argue the bush tax cuts were actually the Dem Congress tax cuts, your arguments are clearly starting with bogus assumptions.

mark said...

@AReasonableMan "delusional economic policies of tax cuts"

Please go educate yourself ...
http://www.tsowell.com/images/Hoover%20Proof.pdf

... then, come back and refute Dr. Sowell.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Nathan Alexander said...
This, Bush is judged by the economic problems at the end of his term only, despite the fact that it was Democrat policies enacted by the Dem-controlled Congress that precipitated the economic collapse.


Crap. The housing bubble was already at its peak when the Democrats came into power in the house.

Titus said...

Thank God!

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

I Callahan said...
The above paragraph is so full of holes, it's laughable. Bush tried on SEVERAL OCCASIONS to reign in the ridiculously low standards being pushed by Fan & Fred.


Provide the evidence. If Bush had tried to pull the plug on the housing bubble the whole ridiculous edifice of tax cuts without spending cuts and increasing personal debt rather than increasing real wages would have collapsed.


He was just marking time hoping to make it to the end of his presidency with some small measure of his dignity still intact. FAIL.

mark said...

@ARM " whole ridiculous edifice of tax cuts without spending cuts "

Go read Dr. Sowell. You are making a fool of yourself.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Nathan Alexander said...
Tax cuts allow people to keep more of the money they earn. Tat provides incentive to work more, and harder. That provides an incentive to open a business, or expand a business.

So tax cuts are often lead to revenue increases.

If you can't understand such a simple, basic socio-economic truth, you really have no standing in an economic discussion at all.

Hint: go look at tax revenue rates from 2001 to 2009.

Explain what caused the changes you see.


This is hilarious. Tax revenues actually collapsed in real terms thanks to Bush's economic policies. Look at the numbers for 2009. Don't you even both to look at the links you provide?

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

mark said...
@ARM " whole ridiculous edifice of tax cuts without spending cuts "

Go read Dr. Sowell. You are making a fool of yourself.


I am supposed to take the ramblings of some right wing nut job working at a third rate institute over the facts of the Bush presidency which are: large tax cuts = economic collapse + declining real wages.

Look at the magic man's words, don't believe your lying eyes.

purplepenquin said...

I'm not voting. I hate all the candidates

Please don't not vote. You don't have to just choose between an Empty Chair and an Etch-a-Sketch, there are a few different other people on the ticket as well.

Ignore those who say it is a "wasted voted"...a vote for a third or fourth party actually helps out a lot: ballot access in the next election for that party; invites to debates; matching public funds; and increased media attention are all direct results from that vote.

It is also a way to get the TwoMainParties to take note of issues they are ignoring. That is how woman were able to get the right to vote in this country, as well as the passage and repeal of Prohibition...neither of the Major Parties were addressing those concerns until they noticed how many voters were flocking to the other political parties that were advocating for change. If the Libertarians and/or Greens are able to cover-the-difference in this election then there is a very strong chance some of the issues they are advocating for will be adopted by either the Dems or the Repubs in order to win over those voters.

But by not voting you're simply telling the powers-that-be to just continue on with what they are doing, 'cause you ain't gonna do anything about it anyways....

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

mark said...
@ARM " whole ridiculous edifice of tax cuts without spending cuts "

Go read Dr. Sowell. You are making a fool of yourself.


Look, I am trying to be reasonable here. This thread addresses the reasons that Althouse decided to vote for Romney. Assuming that you are not insane, a prerequisite for voting for Romney is that voting for a Republican president this time will produce results that are dramatically better than the results produced by Bush.

I am giving all the Bush voters the opportunity to disavow his policies, the policies that led to an unprecedent economic collapse. So far no Bush voter is willing to do this. This is fucking insane.

If a Democrat president had been such a monumental failure as Bush I would have no problem stating that things had to change dramatically before I would vote for another Democrat.

The failure of the Republicans on this board to distance themselves from Bush's policies, not just the man, means that they have learnt nothing from his failure. They are just hacks, Rupublicans uber alles, including reality.

mark said...

@ARM "ramblings of some right wing nut job working at a third rate institute"

That is your description of a winner of the National Humanities Medal at Stanford University? You need to change your internet alias.

I suppose that makes arguing with you easier. Don't. We might as well describe the 3rd dimension to a 2D line.

Marshall Rose said...

AReasonableMan said...

Can you provide some serious evidence for this?


History of Bush attempts to reform Fannie, Freddie, and FHA.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2010/05/pelosi-caught-in-major-lie-says-bush-didnt-warn-congress-about-financial-crisis-records-show-he-warned-congress-17-in-2008-alone/

Marshall Rose said...

I am giving all the Bush voters the opportunity to disavow his policies, the policies that led to an unprecedent economic collapse.

Once again, which policies? And please be specific, with cites.

Marshall Rose said...

And more on Fannie/Freddie cites:

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081009-10.html

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

mark said...
That is your description of a winner of the National Humanities Medal at Stanford University?


First of all, it is genuinely funny that it is called the 'Hoover Institution'. Celebrating failure one Republican president at a time. I am looking forward to the deep insights issuing forth from some future 'Bush Institution'.

Second, have you actually read or listened to this guy? He is deep in the Republican talking points tank. He is a Milton Friedman disciple somewhat like Alan Greenspan, who helped create the fabulous Bush economy.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

marshall2twr said...
Once again, which policies?


Do you not actually read this thread? I have responded to this question several times.

Be a man, stand up for Bush. Let us stand in thrall as you extoll Bush's glorious policies. Tell us once again what a great and fearful economic genius he was. Let your words ring strong and true. Let all those damn lefties quake before your inanities.

Known Unknown said...

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081009-10.html

Bush did a lousy job of the narrative, and people don't really want a Cassandra in the White House foretelling an awful future of mortgage malaise.

He could've been more public about his Fannie and Freddie efforts (which I didn't even realize where so numerous.), but I don't know what that would have accomplished.

There's no real end-run around Congress, unless you're thinking of Executive Orders.

mark said...

@ARM

You are passing off "large tax cuts = economic collapse + declining real wages" as a fact.

It isn't. This is covered as a simple example in any section of optimization in a calculus course.

You are simply wrong on your statement. Wrong historically (as stated in Dr. Sowell's paper). And wrong mathematically.

So, I will not disavow lower tax rates.

I also believe Romney is a better man then Obama. Like I said earlier. I have found no event like Obama's vote on the Stafford act followed by his lies about it to foment racial hate as a better insight into who Obama is.

If you can find any similar event that would shine light into Romney's personal character I'd appreciate it.

Marshall Rose said...

I've just demolished your talking point that Bush was negligent in trying to reform the housing bubble, and you just flat out ignore it.

Your 'Bush Economy' is built upon strawman arguments that have been refuted many times over and over.

I will now take the given wisdom of only allowing myself two responses to your posts as it is a waste of time to do more.

My only hope is that others reading this will also realize how you are operating in bad faith and ignorance.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

marshall2twr said...
And more on Fannie/Freddie cites:

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081009-10.html


So these are direct quotes from the link you provided.

In 2007 when the housing crash was already in progress Bush gives us:

"President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options."

"President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon."

Pathetic.

CWJ said...

Dear Prof Althouse, I'll wait until the dust clears to post in detail. But this is the most interesting political post that I have ever seen you post.

For you, Mitch Daniels. For me, Evan Bayh. Who would have thought meeting in the middle would pass through Indiana.

For me, the saddest thing was was Evan Bayh saying a pox on both your houses and going home. It should have shamed them all, but of course it didn't.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

mark said...
So, I will not disavow lower tax rates.


If the tax ates were historically high you would have a case. With the current, historically low tax rates, you don't have a case. Decreasing taxes now will increase the debt, full stop.




DRJ said...

Everytime I read an Althouse post, I get the feeling she's saying how she feels today but who knows what she may feel like tomorrow. I think she fancies herself as highly nuanced, something common folks like me mistake for indecisive and unpredictable.

So please help me understand today's Althouse-speak. Does this mean she's voting for Romney for sure, that she's still open to Obama, or something else?

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

marshall2twr said...
I've just demolished your talking point that Bush was negligent in trying to reform the housing bubble,


You did such a good job I am now looking forward to you demolishing my argument that the Bush presidency was an economic disaster.

As noted, I read the Bush quotes. Jesus, he was really hard core. The housing bubble is crashing all around him, his presidency and legacy is going up in flames and he says: "The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start."

Nathan Alexander said...

ARM: impervious to logic, sense, evidence, and fact.

sakredkow said...

ARM, phx, and Jake Diamond are in the grip of epistemic closure.

At fact, evidence, or truth that doesn't fit their per-determined conclusion is rejected out of hand.

This, Bush is judged by the economic problems at the end of his term only, despite the fact that it was Democrat policies enacted by the Dem-controlled Congress that precipitated the economic collapse.


I haven't said a fucking thing about Bush. I try to be nice to you Nathan Alexander, but I'm starting to think you aren't even worth condescending anymore.

S. said...

@Purplepenquin

Double negative aside, I couldn't agree more. Your vote is a right and a priveledge. Exercise it. This is your country and you have a voice in how it moves forward. Please don't squander what so many wish they had the right to do.

Michael Haz said...

Althouse, congratulations!

mccullough said...

DRJ,

I think Althouse's vote is a game-time decision.

sakredkow said...

"A" door was closed. Not the door.

JackWayne said...

Dear Jake,

All we need to know about your reliability is contained in your statement that Clinton had a surplus. Go back and look at the debt limit during Clinton's 8 years. It rose EVERY year. Some surplus! And that egregious error makes you a partisan with no credibilty.

By the way, the surplus; If you really knew the facts you would know that Clinton had a surplus for the budgeted items in the budget. But he ran over on the unbudgeted items. So, lying Billy claimed a balanced budget because, after all, taxes + borrowing = expenditures which is balanced......? By that criteria, EVERY President including the previous and current moron had balanced budgets.

So Dear Diamond, stop assuming a superior air of discernment. It makes you foolish.

harrogate said...

"The failure of the Republicans on this board to distance themselves from Bush's policies, not just the man, means that they have learnt nothing from his failure. They are just hacks, Rupublicans uber alles, including reality."


Ding ding ding. Indeed, what a spot-on description of this site's proprietor. No surprise that the commenters are what they are.

bagoh20 said...

"The failure of the Republicans on this board to distance themselves from Bush's policies, not just the man, means that they have learnt nothing from his failure. They are just hacks,"

Since Obama maintained most of them, I guess that includes you.

Mark said...

Obama now has no chance of "winning" the Professor. I take it that means Romney could still "lose" her. But I'm not seeing it.

Michael McNeil said...

… that most ridiculous of all Republican hacks, Instapundit.

Folks — leftists — repeatedly making assertions like this are merely glaringly revealing their ignorance. Anybody who's read Instapundit for any length of time knows that he's not a Republican at all — he's a (small-l — given the uninspiring condition of the LP) libertarian. Reynolds very often sharply criticizes Republican ideas, policies, and individuals. He's against the drug war and pro gay rights. Long before the tea party, he was an early and enthusiastic promoter of the “Porkbusters” campaign to hold politicians — especially perhaps Republican politicians (Democrats unfortunately being hopeless) — accountable for their budget-busting and pork. Like hell he's a “Republican hack.”

damikesc said...

The obvious question is why didn't Bush do something to avoid the monumental increase in unemployment in the first place.

The answer is ideological rigidity. Without a complete remaking of Republican ideology voting for the same fool in different clothing is guaranteed to produce the same unfortunate results.


So, who ran Congress at that time? Can you explain why the economy crashed after the Dems gained Congress after growing under a Republican Congress?

By being honest. Obama has acknowledged that real incomes are falling for the middle and working class. He hasn't pretended that delusional economic policies of tax cuts and housing bubbles can solve the problem.

He's saying things are improving while people are falling further behind. Where is the honesty?

am supposed to take the ramblings of some right wing nut job working at a third rate institute over the facts of the Bush presidency which are: large tax cuts = economic collapse + declining real wages.

Astonishing to see ARM deciding to insult the intellect of the black guy. Remember, he's totally not racist.

Nathan Alexander said...

I haven't said a fucking thing about Bush. I try to be nice to you Nathan Alexander, but I'm starting to think you aren't even worth condescending anymore.
Your arguments for Obama's economic record are of a piece with those trying to ignore 2002-2006 of Bush's economic record.

The only way you can think that things would have been worse without Obama's stimulus is if you think his so-called Keynesian stimulus worked. To believe that, you have to reject Friedman/Laffer economics. (Friedman: monetary policy, Laffer: The Laffer Curve, Keynes: fiscal policy)
The Friedman/Laffer economic theories were proven effective in ending the 2001 bubble-collapse recession that Bush inherited from Clinton.

Now, if you want to actually look at how actual leaders have responded to actual crises, and from there try to make the case that Obama didn't make things worse, go ahead.

But you haven't.

And until you do, you fit perfectly with the other individuals who are locked in epistemic closure.

Reason from evidence, not from talking points.

Nathan Alexander said...

This is hilarious. Tax revenues actually collapsed in real terms thanks to Bush's economic policies. Look at the numbers for 2009. Don't you even both to look at the links you provide?

Didn't you bother to actually use your brain?

Bush has nothing to do with 2009.

It was Democrat policies that caused 2009's economy.

You can repeat gibberish until you are blue in your face, but you have completely failed to provide even the most basic evidence for the most initial of your assumptions.

Stop using talking points. Start using actual history, and reason from actual cause and effect.

Meaning: Person A did Action 1, resulting in consequence X.

Actions have consequences.

2nd step is to understand how the govt actually works.

You know: go back and watch School House Rock to understand how a bill becomes a law. (hint: Presidents are not all powerful)

Then you'll better understand who is responsible for what actions.

Nathan Alexander said...

ARM.
large tax cuts = economic collapse + declining real wages.

Not even close to true.

There is a gap of more than 6 years between the Bush tax cuts and the economic collapse and declining real wages.

What happened during that gap?

How can you draw any causal relationship over the course of more than 24 quarters?

If your theory had any predictive value you at all, how do you explain:

1) wages grew after the Bush tax cuts, over the course of several years
2) the economy grew after the Bush tax cuts, over the course of several years
3) unemployment dropped after the Bush tax cuts, over the course of several years

4) real wages dropped since Obama took office, unemployment increased significantly, and the economy has slumped in multiple indicators...despite no massive tax cuts within the last decade


If a stimulus does not have an effect, and then the effect you are claiming appears without the stimulus you claim, that pretty much wipes out that theory.

There is no reason for you to ever think or say such nonsense again.

Nathan Alexander said...

Glenn Reynolds is for gay marriage and is pro abortion.

He is a linker, meaning he provides dozens of links to all sorts of material every day, including left wing sources.

If he is a right-wing hack, then Stalin was a center-right leader.

If you need a clear example of epistemic closure by the liberal posters, you couldn't find a better one than them calling Glenn Reynolds right-wing.

Bob Ellison said...

We'll never make 710 by 12:00.

Nathan Alexander said...

The best thing about this thread?

phx, ARM, and Jake Diamond are helping demonstrate the truth of the recent study that showed that conservatives are far more knowledgeable and informed about life, science, etc, than liberals.

Joe C. said...

"Obama lied, blatantly and for the purpose of making black people feel discriminated against. That's evil."

from http://www.althouse.blogspot.com/2012/10/barack-obama-in-his-old-community.html

jvermeer51 said...

Ann wrote, " I like balance, moderation, and pragmatism."
What makes you think that balance or moderation is a solution to any problem or achieves a goal better than non-balance or non-moderation? What compromise often gets is a basket of mush, often involving contradictory elements.

rcommal said...

Because the very concepts of "balance," "moderation" or "pragmatism" at their very core, just as notions, are entirely evil ones, not to be applied in any way, shape or form, anywhere ever. Ever, ever, ever. Evil, evil, evil.

I mean, are you kidding me?

Bet you haven't and don't live your personal lives that way, and that you haven't and don't raise your kids that way in day-to-day life. And I'd also bet that you don't conduct your work life that way, whether as an employee of any sort or kind, or as a manager of any sort or kind, or as an employer of any sort of kind, or as a business owner of any sort of kind, whether large, small or anywhere in between. Or even as a freelancer or volunteer.

At least, I hope to God not.

What the hell do you think you're saying? And what the hell do you really think you're advocating?

All in the name of silly-ass, sloppy rhetoric.

rcommal said...

What makes you think that balance or moderation is a solution to any problem

Well, hell, jvermeer51, you tell me again, but better, since you're so all against that

or achieves a goal better than non-balance or non-moderation?

Evidence, please, along with good arguments. And I expect a lot of both, both specifically and across a broad range of areas of life as it's lived (see my just previous comment). You've thrown out, wholesale, in broad brush, *justlikethat**, some values that, it seems to me, even our very Founders (including the more intemperate ones), kinda sorta believed in encouraging--for the most part, though not in all (and most certainly in daily life, in many cases),



---

rcommal said...

Man, there it goes again.

All it takes is a presidential election to make people go nuts and lose their minds.

Perhaps the problem is not, actually, a presidential election.

Aye?

BT said...

Nice Post Ann

Unknown said...

There is going to be palpable sadness on this website on Wednesday when the imagined Romney blow out turns out to be the decisive reelection of the President. And, Ann, you have been in the tank for Romney, and opposed to Obama, for a long time. Saying Benghazi closed the door is like Mitt saying that everything bad about the economy is Obama's fault. But no matter. How will you all cope with 4 more years of the executive branch under the control of this imaginary socialist you all vilify so much?

«Oldest ‹Older   401 – 483 of 483   Newer› Newest»