Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Duh Debates (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 22 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  20  21  22   
Author Topic: Duh Debates
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
I don't have a prediction about the outcomes of the debates, but I recall the first debate of 2004, where there was overwhelming consensus that Kerry won, and won hard. By overwhelming, I mean, Sean Hannity conceded that Kerry won. And yet, it seemed to have almost no effect on the race. I know that the Kennedy/Nixon and Reagan/Carter races are said to have hinged on the debates, but I wonder if that's still true, even potentially. The debates are a whole heck of a lot less authentic than they used to be, though I'm not sure that impacts their weight with the public.

Well if Sean Hannity says it, it must be true.


LoL!

-----------

but seriously Adam, the problem you address is lefto shaming. Folks don't want to admit to polsters and others they perceive as part of the PC gestapo that they believe other than what the you know whats that be are telling them to believe.

[ October 02, 2012, 10:12 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
I don't have a prediction about the outcomes of the debates, but I recall the first debate of 2004, where there was overwhelming consensus that Kerry won, and won hard. By overwhelming, I mean, Sean Hannity conceded that Kerry won. And yet, it seemed to have almost no effect on the race.

No, the evidence says otherwise. Kerry's debate performance didn't win the election for him, but it did drastically narrow difference in the polls.

quote:
In 2004, Bush went from holding an 11-point lead over John Kerry among registered voters just prior to the first debate on Sept. 30 to a 2-point lead right after it -- a 9-point loss for Bush. (A post-debate Gallup Poll found Kerry the perceived winner by a wide margin, 53% to 37%.) The race remained close thereafter: it was tied at 48% after the second debate, and Bush was up by 3 points after the third debate. Bush won the election by a 3-point margin, but it might have been larger had he performed better in the debates.
A 9 point change in national polling is pretty significant.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by yossarian22c:
What does "doesn't work" mean?

Failure to result in a prompt recovery.

Really, what difference does it make. Both Keynesian and non-Keynesian economists said the stimulus was a good idea to counter the immediate fiscal shock. Most economists said it wouldn't 'fix' the economy. Keynesian's said it wasn't big enough, others said sticky wages were an issue, others said their were structural issues, most said their were multiple factors. But any way you slice it you can't claim the failure of the stimulus to cause a prompt recovery vindicates the hard core Keynesian economists. Since pretty much nobody said it would.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Failure to result in a prompt recovery.
A turnaround from freefall to recovery in less than 6 months is very prompt, especially for a financial crisis such as we had.

quote:
But any way you slice it you can't claim the failure of the stimulus to cause a prompt recovery vindicates the hard core Keynesian economists. Since pretty much nobody said it would.
They said that what was implemented would end the recession, but that it was inadequate to support a fast pace of recovery; how can they not be vindicated when the end result precisely matched their predictions?

It wasn't the fault of the doctor that prescribed the antibiotics that the illness lingers, but the patient who decided to try to try to be more conservative with the medicine by only taking a third of the prescribe dosage.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There are two ways to get the economy going: create new foundational technologies, much as computers did in the eighties or as WWII did back in the 50's. Or free up the wealth resources of the job creators allowing more money to circulate through the system. Unfortunately, option one isn't something you can do with the snap of a finger. Option two is the one the government has more control over.


@ Pete
quote:
Obama proposes to at least do something about the economy.
No, Obama _promised_ to do something with the economy and then spent a trillion dollars with little to show for it.


quote:
And trying to settle the national debt while a recession is raging, is kind of like the pusillanimity of a man who uses his cell phone to dispute credit card charges while his daughter is getting gang-raped before his eyes.
So, if the boat is sinking, the right thing to do is to poor more water into it? Or to spend your time fishing while the boat continues to fill? Sorry if I don't buy into that one, Pete. Obama's number one priority should have been the Economy from the very beginning and increasing the debt should have been anathema. To me, the economy was your so-called gang-rape and health care a cell phone...

Once again, Romney doesn't need to be Reagan-style charming to win the debate. He just needs to bring these issues to the fore and explain how he's gonna fix 'em. Obama's gonna have to offer something more than just the failed policies of the last four years.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just saying they failed doesn't make it so, and believing it wholeheartedly yourself won't convince others who disagree with you. You are also falling into the trap of believing that success or failure is a binary state, as well as believing that people in the USA do not understand that each party bears different amounts of responsibility for the policies that eventually got implemented.
quote:
So, if the boat is sinking, the right thing to do is to poor more water into it?
If the boat is on fire, and also has a slow leak? Absolutely.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Or free up the wealth resources of the job creators allowing more money to circulate through the system. Unfortunately, option one isn't something you can do with the snap of a finger. Option two is the one the government has more control over."

When has that worked without some underlying technical/industrial revolution? Just giving rich people free money to spend doesn't mean they'll invest it unless they expect a bigger return than Romney gets by just sticking the money in foreign banks and buying equities.

"Once again, Romney doesn't need to be Reagan-style charming to win the debate. He just needs to bring these issues to the fore and explain how he's gonna fix 'em."

He's had plenty of opportunities and hasn't yet, so I agree, it will be interesting to see. On FOX on Sunday Ryan said it would take too long to explain how Romney is going to cut taxes by 20% across the board and stay revenue neutral. I'm *really* looking forward to hearing him say that tonight.

[ October 03, 2012, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The debates are inextricably linked to polling, so this quote** from a Wall Street Analyst is intriguing:
quote:
"I think the immigration issue is hurting Romney in Florida, I think his auto position is hurting him in Ohio," he said, citing recent survey data. "Obama leading in a FOX News poll can't be good for Romney."
Basically, he's admitting that FOX even biases their "independent" polls to skew them toward Republicans.

** UBB won't display the link because it contains a paren: You can find it here: 2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10

[ October 03, 2012, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EDanaII:
quote:
And trying to settle the national debt while a recession is raging, is kind of like the pusillanimity of a man who uses his cell phone to dispute credit card charges while his daughter is getting gang-raped before his eyes.
So, if the boat is sinking, the right thing to do is to poor more water into it? Or to spend your time fishing while the boat continues to fill? Sorry if I don't buy into that one, Pete.

And he worked on that first- do you think it would have made any political sense at all to have followed the initial stimulus bill with pushing for another one right on its tail to fill the gaps? Since he bought a year or two with what did go through, he was left with a choice between the next two big economic stumbling block that needed to be addressed- bringing the banks back under a more healthy regulation system and the healthcare system. He went with the latter, and I'm sure that Sen. Kennedy's condition probably played into that decision. He probably could have gotten back around to more direct economic support within the year, but the Senate let itself be paralyzed with obstructionism and didn't get half of what it could have accomplished done. (I'd love to see a good clear list of what passed the House in the first two years and die waiting for the Senate to even have the time to get it to the floor, never mind chew its way through the filibuster process.)

quote:
Obama's number one priority should have been the Economy from the very beginning and increasing the debt should have been anathema.
Leaches are good for anemia, you think? The private sector was hemorraging money, and your solution would have been to help pull even more out of it. The only thing that should have been anathema was the phrase "Federal Debt" or any related ideas. It would be much more accurate and honest to term it "National Net Savings Potential", because that's what the debt actually is- the total possible level that private and foreign US dollar savings less US private US dollar debts can reach. (And, similarly "deficit" should be replaced with "Net Private Financial Profit Margin", because, again, that's what it really is.) But of course, it's much harder to stonewall needed programs by threatening that they'll risk increasing private profits margins and savings potential than it is to apply FUD terms like debt and deficit, despite how nonsensical they are in relationship to the entity that issues the currency in question at will. It's like saying that the NFL had better get its point deficit under control before it has too much point-debt to hold the Superbowl.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
EDanall, why do you think that healthcare is a separate issue from the economy? Illness and medical bills are responsible for over half of the bankruptcies in this country.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
. Or free up the wealth resources of the job creators allowing more money to circulate through the system
Close- creating financial resources and putting them in the hands of the lower in middle classes so that they can continue to spend enough to keep up their role as job creators is exactly what we need more, not less of. When they have the money to spend, the profit potential of capital investment will begin to overtake that of financial speculation moneylending and motivate resource brokers to actually put them to productive use. That movement can be encouraged more with regulations and taxes that limit the relative profit potential of speculation and selling private debt compared to production and payroll, which are tax-deductible.

But if they already have all the money, giving them more money isn't going to motivate them to use their resources productively; it's only consumer demand that employs them, and consumer demand eclipses all other concerns; if demand exists and it's possible to be met, markets will find a way to reach them, regardless of regulations or taxes; the simply influence the shape of the market. On the other hand, little to anything will be produced if no one can communicate demand for it, even if there are no regulations or taxes involved.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That seems to me to capture the ultimate fallacy of the GOP philosophy. It assumes that the same amount of capital is available to the consumer, so that entrepreneurs giving them new ways to spend it will produce yet more wealth -- for the consumer as known by their other name, the middle class!

But with falling incomes and higher than historical unemployment, the consumer segment doesn't have the money. Pulling more money out of their pockets for health care costs and to make up for lost government credits and benefits compounds the problem. The GOP plan is really a wealth redistribution scheme that will continue to sap money from the middle class and concentrate it the hands of the most wealthy, who in turn will sock it away because capital investment opportunities will be less profitable than they previously had been. We won't be a society led by merchant princes, but a plutocracy led by people who have all the money.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Reagonomics Analysis:
quote:
According to a 1996 study by William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore:[32] On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.
AND:
quote:
Stephen Moore stated, "No act in the last quarter century had a more profound impact on the U.S. economy of the eighties and nineties than the Reagan tax cut of 1981." He claims that Reagan's tax cuts, combined with an emphasis on federal monetary policy, deregulation, and expansion of free trade created a sustained economic expansion creating America's greatest sustained wave of prosperity ever.
AND:
quote:
Milton Friedman stated, "Reaganomics had four simple principles: Lower marginal tax rates, less regulation, restrained government spending, noninflationary monetary policy. Though Reagan did not achieve all of his goals, he made good progress."[49] Entrepreneurs flourished as a result of Reaganomics: Lower tax rates and inflation coupled with less regulation favored improved environments for market-based funding, risk-taking, access to labor (leading to greater employment), and a more level playing field between these entrepreneurs and large corporations.
AND:
quote:
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 and its impact on the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) reduced nominal rates on the wealthy and eliminated tax deductions, while raising tax rates on lower-income individuals.[49][50][51][52] The across the board tax system reduced marginal rates and further reduced bracket creep from inflation. The highest income earners (with incomes exceeding $1,000,000) received a tax break, restoring a flatter the tax system.[53] In 2006, the IRS's National Taxpayer Advocate's report characterized the effective rise in the AMT for individuals as a problem with the tax code.[54] Through 2007, the revised AMT had brought in more tax revenue than the former tax code, which has made it difficult for Congress to reform.[53][55]

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Failure to result in a prompt recovery.
A turnaround from freefall to recovery in less than 6 months is very prompt, especially for a financial crisis such as we had.

The recovery is still under way. The Stimulus didn't primarily address the recession (what you are calling a freefall). That was TARP and various Fed Monetary policies. The recession ended in June 2009 before much of the Stimulus had even kicked in.

The Stimulus was explicitly designed to encourage a rapid recovery. Hence the name: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
The Recovery has not been prompt in any way. Both Labor Force Participation and Median household income are still heading downward & the latest GDP growth numbers were just adjusted substantially downward.

quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
But any way you slice it you can't claim the failure of the stimulus to cause a prompt recovery vindicates the hard core Keynesian economists. Since pretty much nobody said it would.
They said that what was implemented would end the recession, but that it was inadequate to support a fast pace of recovery; how can they not be vindicated when the end result precisely matched their predictions?

No, the recovery didn't precisely match their predictions. Here is the forecast of the effects of the Stimulus from the Obama administrations economic team. Link It's pretty obvious that they were completely wrong. That their assumptions were flawed, they were working from faulty data and the results weren't anything close to what they predicted.

To call that a precise prediction is absurd.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
FiveThirtyEight.com has some interesting historical observations about Presidential debates.

quote:
The first thing to notice is that the debates normally have a modest impact ... the average shift was 2.3 percentage points.
quote:
Fourth ... the first debate has normally helped the challenger. ... on average, the challenging-party candidate gained a net of one and a half percentage points on the incumbent-party candidate.

However, the challenger’s gains have come mainly from undecided voters rather than from the incumbent himself.

This is bad news for Romney, since there is a relatively small number of undecided voters in this election.

quote:
So a reasonable best guess, based on the historical precedent and without considering any factors specific to this race, is that Mr. Romney will gain a point or two in the polls by next week, while Mr. Obama’s number will hold steady.
quote:
But here’s the bad news for Mr. Romney: no candidate who trailed by as much he did heading into the first debate went on to win the election.
quote:
More bad news for Mr. Romney: although there has been a tendency for the challenging candidate to gain ground immediately after the first debate, there has not been any tendency for the challenger to gain over the remaining weeks of the election. On average during these years, the challenging candidate trailed by 1.5 percentage points in polls conducted just after the first debate — and the challenger eventually lost the election, on average, by 1.4 percentage points, a nearly identical margin.
(All emphasis from source.)

So it looks like we can expect Romney's polls to go up a couple of points after these debates but then hold steady until the election. The debates are important, but someone outside of the debates will have to occur for them to be a gamechanger.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
To call that a precise prediction is absurd.

Yet that's what he calls it. It's amazing isn't it?
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
EDannal,

quote:
There are two ways to get the economy going: create new foundational technologies, much as computers did in the eighties or as WWII did back in the 50's. Or free up the wealth resources of the job creators allowing more money to circulate through the system.
Only if the 'wealth resources' are likely to be invested in such a way as it creates jobs in the host country. If they are likely to be invested in foreign countries (out sourcing, foreign direct investment, or even if significant parts of the corporations manufacturing are foreign) it actually reduces jobs in the host country (unless the foreign country increases its purchase of labor intensive goods from the host country).

Unfortunately right now very little of the variable labor and labor intensive parts of corporations is in the US - so cuts in taxation lead to foreign growth and domestic reduction over the long term and short term, similarly stimulus spending has very little effect.

Thus federal spending, tax cuts and tax incentives need to be done in such a way that they result in labor intensive activity in the host country.

Since neither Romney nor Obama have structured their tax cuts, incentives, or federal spending to that effect both of them will result in harming the economy with their economic plans - although I think Romneys is likely to cause far greater harm.

A plan that would actually work would be

1) raise the general capital gains rate (this would cause individuals who have been holding off on recognizing gains to recognize them, giving a boost to the federal income tax, but also freeing up the capital to be reinvested in step 2)

2) lower the capital gains rate for investments into new small businesses and start up corporations particularly, and give even lower rates for those that are particularly US labor and US manufactured equipment intensive.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
But here’s the bad news for Mr. Romney: no candidate who trailed by as much he did heading into the first debate went on to win the election.

Yes, that's technically true, but it leaves out some important details.

For example:
1980 Reagan trailed Carter by 1.4 going into the debate

Final results of the Election:
Reagan 50.7 Carter 41.0 Mondale 6.6

Even if you were to assume that Carter won all of Mondale's votes, Reagan would have won by 3.1. Which is a gain of 4.5% and more than enough to push Romney over the top. This election has a noticeable resemblance to the 1980 election.

That being said, barring outside events, Romney needs to win 2 of the 3 debates including the last one to win the election. Obama has an incumbent advantage and a good chuck of the media will spin anything other than a clear Romney win into a pre-predictable path to an Obama victory.

On the other hand, if Romney does have a 3%+ bump in the polls after the first debate, then the election will be a complete toss up. Of course, the Left wing media is doing their best to spin a Romney victory in the first debate as not meaning much. Therefore, they can claim after the fact that a) if Romney wins, it doesn't mean anything or b) if Obama wins, Romney's so terrible that nothing can prevent an eventual Obama victory. It's always nice to set the narrative up in such a way that no matter what happens your side wins. And that's clearly what Mr. Silver is attempting to do here.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JWatts,

or Mr. Silver could just be offering interesting analysis without much desire to 'set the narrative'. If you felt he was an 'honest' analyst or favored the republican candidate- how do you think it would change the analysis?

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TCB
Member
Member # 1677

 - posted      Profile for TCB         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Based on browsing around the conservative blogosphere over the last 12 months, any political analysis that doesn't involve comparing Obama to Carter can safely be ignored. [Smile]
Posts: 824 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This election has a noticeable resemblance to the 1980 election.
Personally, I don't see it, but that just may be me. We'll see soon enough.

quote:
On the other hand, if Romney does have a 3%+ bump in the polls after the first debate, then the election will be a complete toss up.
If Romney does have such a large bump after the debates, you can count on Nate to give a thorough analysis of it.

In fact, he will doubtlessly give a thorough analysis of how the debates influenced the polls regardless of the results. [Smile]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Failure to result in a prompt recovery.
A turnaround from freefall to recovery in less than 6 months is very prompt, especially for a financial crisis such as we had.

The recovery is still under way. The Stimulus didn't primarily address the recession (what you are calling a freefall). That was TARP and various Fed Monetary policies. The recession ended in June 2009 before much of the Stimulus had even kicked in.

So you're claiming that it's a complete coincidence that the same month there was a sharp uptick in total spending was also the same moth that GDP stopped falling? The other policies failed to stop the fall. It wasn't till the stimulus spending started and directly pushed demand up that the recession stopped.

quote:
The Stimulus was explicitly designed to encourage a rapid recovery. Hence the name: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

No it wasn't. It was designed to be a compromise between the Obama administrations overly conservative estimate of what was needed and what they thought that Republicans would want to let it pass. It was designed to _pass_ quickly. And that even failed as the Republicans held it up even longer and whittled it down even further before letting it through.

quote:
The Recovery has not been prompt in any way. Both Labor Force Participation and Median household income are still heading downward & the latest GDP growth numbers were just adjusted substantially downward.
It has been long and slow, certainly, but "prompt" only makes in sense in terms of when it started. It started promptly, and has managed overall out outperform almost every other recovery from similar circumstances, despite being less well funded proportionally than they were.

quote:
[QBNo, the recovery didn't precisely match their predictions. Here is the forecast of the effects of the Stimulus from the Obama administrations economic team. Link It's pretty obvious that they were completely wrong. That their assumptions were flawed, they were working from faulty data and the results weren't anything close to what they predicted.

To call that a precise prediction is absurd. [/QB]

Your claim was that the ARRA didn't match the projections of what hardcore Keynesians predicted it would do, when it did exactly perform as they predicted.

The projections that Obama's advisers (not hardcore Keynesians) prior to him even taking office, when they still didn't have full data on how big the collapse would be, based on their estimates of how much spending was needed (much less than the hardcore Keynesians prescribed, and much more than actually managed to get through Congress) aren't really relevant to your claim.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
JWatts,

or Mr. Silver could just be offering interesting analysis without much desire to 'set the narrative'.

Perhaps. But there have been quite a few, 'the debates don't really matter' articles recently.

quote:
Why the debates probably won’t matter Oct. 3rd 2012
WP

quote:
Viewers Beware, Presidential Debates Rarely Matter Oct. 3rd
Business Week

quote:
Do Presidential Debates Really Matter? September/October 2012

Remember all the famous moments in past debates that changed the outcome of those elections? Well, they didn’t.

Washington Monthly

quote:
Why debates don't always make a difference - Donna Brazile September 29, 2012
Check the Google results for the phrase "the debates don't matter 9/1-10/15" 2004 vs 2008 vs 2012.

2004 1.0K results
2008 1.6K results
2012 103K results

It looks to me like someone is trying to establish a narrative.

quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
If you felt he was an 'honest' analyst..

I didn't claim he was dishonest. I was simply implying he wasn't impartial. (maybe should read 'was partial') He's a notable Obama supporter.

quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
or favored the republican candidate- how do you think it would change the analysis?

Well if he favored a Republican candidate I imagine he'd point out the same quite obvious fact that I did. It is pretty obvious that the Reagan/Carter debate was a distinct turning point. And it's the election that most resembles the current one.


1) Sitting President vs Challenger
2) Presidential approval below 50%
3) Weak Economy
3) Significant Middle East issues

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Interesting analysis. But Mitt is hardly as slick as Ronald Reagan. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8YxFc_1b_0

It's funny hearing them talk, all the way back in 1980, about our "response in AFGHANISTAN AND IRAN"

[ October 03, 2012, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Interesting analysis. But Mitt is hardly as slick as Ronald Reagan. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8YxFc_1b_0

True, but I didn't say that Romney was like Reagan or that Obama is like Carter. If that were the case, the election would already be over. [Wink]

Actually joking aside, that's not really true. Reagan was considered an underdog before the Presidential debate. And the media really despised Ronald Reagan.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Out of curiosity, does anyone remember what Jimmy Carter said that the "single most important issue" in the 1980 campaign was? It's 12-13 minutes into my link.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Out of curiosity, does anyone remember what Jimmy Carter said that the "single most important issue" in the 1980 campaign was? It's 12-13 minutes into my link.

That the Bad economy was all Ford's fault?
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No. That's not an issue.

He said that nuclear weapons were the most important thing.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wonder, if, as a gag, we played the 1980 Carter-Reagan Debates in some public place today, how many people would stop and watch it?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Out of curiosity, does anyone remember what Jimmy Carter said that the "single most important issue" in the 1980 campaign was?"

Hmm, I don't remember. Not the "moral equivalent of war?"

"I wonder, if, as a gag, we played the 1980 Carter-Reagan Debates in some public place today, how many people would stop and watch it?"

No special effects other than the rod up Carter's ass, so not interesting enough.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
No. That's not an issue.

He said that nuclear weapons were the most important thing.

Really? He thought that was the most important issue in the middle of a fierce recovery period? Obviously, the correct answer was Healthcare reform. Carter was such a yokel. [LOL]
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JWatts, our lack of a socialized meds system is one of the major causes of our trade deficit, leading to wholesale exportation of jobs.

OTOH, Obamacare specifically does not address that problem; the only solution would be to put the weight onto a consumption tax.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
JWatts, our lack of a socialized meds system is one of the major causes of our trade deficit, leading to wholesale exportation of jobs.

Maybe. Do you have a good source to support that? A main stream economist ideally.

I'm going to point out that Germany uses a joint employer-employee contribution model and they don't seem to be suffering from economic competitiveness issues. Whereas, France has a public provider model and is clearly having such issues. So empirical evidence indicates your statement is incorrect.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
OTOH, Obamacare specifically does not address that problem; the only solution would be to put the weight onto a consumption tax.

Indeed, Obamacare makes the situation worse. Penalizing companies for not providing health care is probably going to hurt our international competitiveness.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When a middleweight ties a heavyweight the middleweight won. So far Romney is holding his own with Obama. It's unfortunate for him that Republicans have refused to treat him as an underdog, because as an underdog he's looking pretty good IMO.
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
JWatts, our lack of a socialized meds system is one of the major causes of our trade deficit, leading to wholesale exportation of jobs.

Maybe. Do you have a good source to support that? A main stream economist ideally.
I have my father's written report from Ford Motor Company to President Bush, stating that they spent 2.5 thousand dollars per car on employee health insurance that their international competitors were not paying, due to national health insurance in Japan, etc. I could look it up and scan it in, if you consider that a good source. But that was 1990; I reckon Ford's paying a good deal more per car on health insurance now.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Germany uses a joint employer-employee contribution model and they don't seem to be suffering from economic competitiveness issues. "

The german automobile model obviously is not imitable on a level that could sustain our economy. The relevant competition was US vs. Japan.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
No. That's not an issue.

He said that nuclear weapons were the most important thing.

Really? He thought that was the most important issue in the middle of a fierce recovery period? Obviously, the correct answer was Healthcare reform. Carter was such a yokel. [LOL]
I actually watched the entire debate this morning. Very boring day, since my phone got cut off. Funny to hear a debate where health care never comes up. I watched the debate carefully in 1980, and it's interesting to me, 32 years later, to be able to watch it with hindsight.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I just started watching the prez debate around 9:50. I agree that Romney is holding his own, but the whole thing is too damn boring, except for those moments when Romney and Jim Lehrer look like they're about to have a pillow fight.
Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's overly detailed without being very specific.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Boring = status quo = good for Obama, but I think more people are going to be swayed by the post-analysis of press and bloggers than by watching it themselves and from what I've seen Romney has done pretty well in their eyes.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 22 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  20  21  22   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1