President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[conversationpc]

There has never been a period in American history where GDP improved over what it otherwise would have with a decrease in the marginal tax rate and hence revenues.

There's no way to tell "what it otherwise would have". It's pure speculation.

[Saint John]

MOVIE QUIZBe honest and don't look at the movie list below till you have done the
math!


Try this test and find out what your favorite movie is.

This amazing math quiz can likely predict which of 17 movies you would
enjoy the most.

It really works! ..... for MOST of us anyway!

Movie Test:

1. Pick a number from 1-9.

2. Multiply by 3..

3. Add 3.

4. Multiply by 3 again.

5. Now add the two digits of your answer together to find your predicted
favorite movie in the list of 17 movies below







Movie List:

1. Gone With The Wind

2. E.T.

3. Blazing Saddles

4. Star Wars

5. Forrest Gump

6. The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly

7. Jaws

8. Grease

9. The Obama farewell speech of 2013

10. Casablanca

11. Jurassic Park

12. Shrek

13. Pirates of the Caribbean

14. Titanic

15. Raiders Of The Lost Ark

16. Home Alone

17. Mrs. Doubtfire



I told you it was amazing.

[Behshad]

MOVIE QUIZBe honest and don't look at the movie list below till you have done the
math!


Try this test and find out what your favorite movie is.

This amazing math quiz can likely predict which of 17 movies you would
enjoy the most.

It really works! ..... for MOST of us anyway!

Movie Test:

1. Pick a number from 1-9.

2. Multiply by 3..

3. Add 3.

4. Multiply by 3 again.

5. Now add the two digits of your answer together to find your predicted
favorite movie in the list of 17 movies below







Movie List:

1. Gone With The Wind

2. E.T.

3. Blazing Saddles

4. Star Wars

5. Forrest Gump

6. The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly

7. Jaws

8. Grease

9. The Obama Secnd Term Victory Speach

10. Casablanca

11. Jurassic Park

12. Shrek

13. Pirates of the Caribbean

14. Titanic

15. Raiders Of The Lost Ark

16. Home Alone

17. Mrs. Doubtfire



I told you it was amazing.

It really really works!

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

BTW, I have an MBA with an emphasis in economics, so I DO know how economics work.

No what that means you have been indoctinated up to you eyeballs in the Keynesian theories which domitate economic departments in academia. Doesn't mean that those theories are right ( I know plenty about the theoretical biases in aceademia as i have studied economic and political philosophy at the graduate level )

[Saint John]

Just to recap....

Bush holding hands and planting a fat juicy wet one on the King's whiskery mug (on our own turf no less!) is A-ok.

To my recollection, President Obama hasn't ferried the bin laden family out of the US following a terrorist attack. Things that make you go hmm.

No, just planning on closing Gitmo and possibly releasing prisoners in the US. Thanks, Bamster!!!

Riiiggghhhttt. You need to remember that idiocy and incompetence left office in January.

This is a smart Administration. Emanuel, Clinton and Geithner are all top headed folks. I remember heariing you dolts wanting Timmy's head. Care to revisit that ? He has proven to be the bomb.

[Seven Wishes2]

BTW, I have an MBA with an emphasis in economics, so I DO know how economics work.

No what that means you have been indoctinated up to you eyeballs in the Keynesian theories which domitate economic departments in academia. Doesn't mean that those theories are right ( I know plenty about the theoretical biases in aceademia as i have studied economic and political philosophy at the graduate level )

Since you're such an ardent supporter of the trickle-down theory, Matt, find me a data set that proves it works. I've provided an enormous amount of information which asserts the contrary in the past few months, and supports the demand-side theory. It's not a matter of indoctrination; it's logic. The model that stimulates the economy and spurs job creation is the one I support. I would contend that the indoctrination, or perchance brainwashing, is restricted to the Faux theorists who continue to spew factoids and falsehoods when unassailable data proves them wrong.

[slucero]

Clearly the problem with the economy is a lack of demand... one need only remember that the consumer is 70% of GDP to see that. But that is only a symptom.

It is as a result of the rapid deceleration in credit issuance, brought on by over-leveraging at the government, banking and consumer level that the U.S. is now caught in a Catch-22... for the 1st time in our history we are in a economic crisis where the Middle class does do not produce the goods they buy... hence the middle class cannot work their way back to prosperity and excess income... and the GDP numbers reflect that...

The U.S. cannot simply "grow" its way out this time...

Re-inflating the economy via Federal Reserve/Government stimulus will not re-ignite manufacturing and with it middle class wealth creation, which occurred largely from 1950 to 1975... the manufacturing boat has sailed... and that wealth engine has sailed with it.

All this re-flating stimuli it will do is dilute the currency... and float the banks and stock markets with cheap dollars, it does nothing to solve the underlying, fundamental problems...

1. The Middle class must get out of debt.
2. The Middle class must save more.
3. The country must figure out how to "close" its economy, at least to the same degree it did when the Middle class grew...
4. The US must figure out how to re-industrialize


Attempts to re-inflate the still fundamentally sick economy with stimulus will not work until what ails the economy, the debt, is purged from it.

This time the de-levering has to occur...

[RedWingFan]

Just to recap....

Bush holding hands and planting a fat juicy wet one on the King's whiskery mug (on our own turf no less!) is A-ok.

To my recollection, President Obama hasn't ferried the bin laden family out of the US following a terrorist attack. Things that make you go hmm.

No, just planning on closing Gitmo and possibly releasing prisoners in the US. Thanks, Bamster!!!

Riiiggghhhttt. You need to remember that idiocy and incompetence left office in January.

This is a smart Administration. Emanuel, Clinton and Geithner are all top headed folks. I remember heariing you dolts wanting Timmy's head. Care to revisit that ? He has proven to be the bomb.

Nice find Dan!!!

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

BTW, I have an MBA with an emphasis in economics, so I DO know how economics work.

No what that means you have been indoctinated up to you eyeballs in the Keynesian theories which domitate economic departments in academia. Doesn't mean that those theories are right ( I know plenty about the theoretical biases in aceademia as i have studied economic and political philosophy at the graduate level )

Since you're such an ardent supporter of the trickle-down theory, Matt, find me a data set that proves it works. I've provided an enormous amount of information which asserts the contrary in the past few months, and supports the demand-side theory. It's not a matter of indoctrination; it's logic. The model that stimulates the economy and spurs job creation is the one I support. I would contend that the indoctrination, or perchance brainwashing, is restricted to the Faux theorists who continue to spew factoids and falsehoods when unassailable data proves them wrong.

What I belive in is is not trickle down (which is a pejorative term used by folks who want to disparage capitalism) What I believe is that individuals and businesses when they have the freedom to make their own choices have the detailed knowledge (through the mechanism of the market) to make the right choices which have the widest posssible postive effect on the economy. Furthermore when you leave the business cycle to work you will have upturns and downturn but during each downturn bad debt clears and the economy returns stronger and a little bigger.

There is plenty of evidence that it works. The unparralled weath creation that we've seen in the western world in the 18th and 19th especially in the US and British economies is one piece of evidence. Or more recetnly the growth of East Asian nations (Sinapore, Hong Kong ?) due to their low marginal tax rates. Or do you want to wind further and furher back to the 5th century BC when the center of Athens was the Agora (the market) and the free maket system of incentive/ entrepreneurship there built Athens into a leading world power?

Demand side economics / govt intervention in the business cycle has done nothing to spur economic growth or flatten boom and bust cycles ( http://www.nber.org/cycles.html) You will note from this data they still have continued in about the same frequency and lenght as they always have before Keynesian intervention became

If you want a specific example, I think I explained a few pages back about what happened in the US economy between 1918-19376. In 1919-1920 the US was in recession (thanks to govt spending over WWI). Calvin Coolidge (the last real capitalist president we had ) did NOTHING besides cut tax rates. Europe suffered hyperinflation, the US economy roared.
In 1929 Herbert Hoover in response to a normal cyclical downturn and stock market correction began to engage in run away government spending, housing programs Keynesian stimulus, and raised taxes. Recession turned into depression and we didn't get out of it for over a decade as Roosevelt happily picked up his mantra.

Any everyone is shocked when the two big goverment cheerleader twins Bush and Obama did the same thing made the 2008 downturn worse with TARP the Recovery Act and QE1 and QE2 ??

There are two examples of demand side economics not working. Proponents of demand side economics have no answer to Says Law or JS Mills theories on consumption and production. Link provided as Im sure your fair and balanced college economic curriculum didn't make this idea available to you !
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_ ... &Itemid=27

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Clearly the problem with the economy is a lack of demand... one need only remember that the consumer is 70% of GDP to see that. But that is only a symptom.
..

I agree with everthing else you say in your post 100% , but the problem is not lack of demand , there's always something being consumed or demanded in an economy. As the economist JS Mill noted along time ago (and is able to say it better than me )

"Consumption never needs encouragement. All which is produced is already consumed, either for the purpose of reproduction or of enjoyment. The person who saves his income is no less a consumer than he who spends it: he consumes it in a different way; it supplies food and clothing to be consumed, tools and materials to be used, by productive labourers. Consumption, therefore, already takes place to the greatest extent which the amount of production admits of; but, of the two kinds of consumption, reproductive and unproductive, the former alone adds to the national wealth, the latter impairs it. What is consumed for mere enjoyment, is gone; what is consumed for reproduction, leaves commodities of equal value, commonly with the addition of a profit. The usual effect of the attempts of government to encourage consumption, is merely to prevent saving; that is, to promote unproductive consumption at the expense of reproductive, and diminish the national wealth by the very means which were intended to increase it. What a country wants to make it richer, is never consumption, but production

[slucero]

Clearly the problem with the economy is a lack of demand... one need only remember that the consumer is 70% of GDP to see that. But that is only a symptom.
..

I agree with everthing else you say in your post 100% , but the problem is not lack of demand , there's always something being consumed or demanded in an economy. As the economist JS Mill noted along time ago (and is able to say it better than me )

"Consumption never needs encouragement. All which is produced is already consumed, either for the purpose of reproduction or of enjoyment. The person who saves his income is no less a consumer than he who spends it: he consumes it in a different way; it supplies food and clothing to be consumed, tools and materials to be used, by productive labourers. Consumption, therefore, already takes place to the greatest extent which the amount of production admits of; but, of the two kinds of consumption, reproductive and unproductive, the former alone adds to the national wealth, the latter impairs it. What is consumed for mere enjoyment, is gone; what is consumed for reproduction, leaves commodities of equal value, commonly with the addition of a profit. The usual effect of the attempts of government to encourage consumption, is merely to prevent saving; that is, to promote unproductive consumption at the expense of reproductive, and diminish the national wealth by the very means which were intended to increase it. What a country wants to make it richer, is never consumption, but production

absolutely correct. To me that perceived "lack of demand" is merely a symptom.. maybe a more accurate statement from me would have been....

"a GDP reflecting economic growth within the US in the form of jobs and middle class wealth creation will require a US that produces and consumes much more of its own output..."

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Clearly the problem with the economy is a lack of demand... one need only remember that the consumer is 70% of GDP to see that. But that is only a symptom.
..

I agree with everthing else you say in your post 100% , but the problem is not lack of demand , there's always something being consumed or demanded in an economy. As the economist JS Mill noted along time ago (and is able to say it better than me )

"Consumption never needs encouragement. All which is produced is already consumed, either for the purpose of reproduction or of enjoyment. The person who saves his income is no less a consumer than he who spends it: he consumes it in a different way; it supplies food and clothing to be consumed, tools and materials to be used, by productive labourers. Consumption, therefore, already takes place to the greatest extent which the amount of production admits of; but, of the two kinds of consumption, reproductive and unproductive, the former alone adds to the national wealth, the latter impairs it. What is consumed for mere enjoyment, is gone; what is consumed for reproduction, leaves commodities of equal value, commonly with the addition of a profit. The usual effect of the attempts of government to encourage consumption, is merely to prevent saving; that is, to promote unproductive consumption at the expense of reproductive, and diminish the national wealth by the very means which were intended to increase it. What a country wants to make it richer, is never consumption, but production

absolutely correct. To me that perceived "lack of demand" is merely a symptom.. maybe a more accurate statement from me would have been....

"a GDP reflecting economic growth within the US in the form of jobs and middle class wealth creation will require a US that produces and consumes much more of its own output..."

yep agree with that !

[S2M]

There is NEVER a lack of demand. Ever. What there is a lack of is the MEANS to meet demand - financially. People will always need stuff...they just may not have the funds to acquire that need.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Perry is flaming out. Like Obama and Fred Thompson before him, he's another empty suit propped up by the media. His debate performances have been laughable. Hopefully, primary voters are discerning enough to vote for someone who's more cattle than hat.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Perry is flaming out. Like Obama and Fred Thompson before him, he's another empty suit propped up by the media. His debate performances have been laughable. Hopefully, primary voters are discerning enough to vote for someone who's more cattle than hat.

He's got a future in cartoons though. He had a look of a scared looney tunes character up there at the debate everytime everyone trained their fire on him. The presidential race is over for him though. Still I dont see Romney winning the nomination. Someone in the lower tier will either rise or someone else will get in.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Perry is flaming out. Like Obama and Fred Thompson before him, he's another empty suit propped up by the media. His debate performances have been laughable. Hopefully, primary voters are discerning enough to vote for someone who's more cattle than hat.

He's got a future in cartoons though. He had a look of a scared looney tunes character up there at the debate everytime everyone trained their fire on him. The presidential race is over for him though. Still I dont see Romney winning the nomination. Someone in the lower tier will either rise or someone else will get in.

Yet again tho, the media is pre-emptively telling everyone that this is a Perry v. Romney race. I hate that. That's how we ended up with Obama. His debate performances sucked ass, and yet the media kept saying he was the guy to beat.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Perry is flaming out. Like Obama and Fred Thompson before him, he's another empty suit propped up by the media. His debate performances have been laughable. Hopefully, primary voters are discerning enough to vote for someone who's more cattle than hat.

He's got a future in cartoons though. He had a look of a scared looney tunes character up there at the debate everytime everyone trained their fire on him. The presidential race is over for him though. Still I dont see Romney winning the nomination. Someone in the lower tier will either rise or someone else will get in.

Yet again tho, the media is pre-emptively telling everyone that this is a Perry v. Romney race. I hate that. That's how we ended up with Obama. His debate performances sucked ass, and yet the media kept saying he was the guy to beat.

Christie gets in?- Though I can't see folks voting for a fat guy. We did have a 320 pound president once - Taft- but there was no TV back in them days. (at least Richard simmonds would finally move to Canada !) - and I cant see Republicans voting for a guy who supported some gun control.

As Perry implodes I reckon Perry supporters will look at Gingrich and Santorum. Folks will decide Gingrich has too much baggage and will focus on Santorum.
I wouldn't be suprised to see Santorum rise.

At any rate with all that confusion I reckon there is a chance the libertarian candidates (Paul / Johnson) can make a real showing. Not win but make real ripple.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Perry is flaming out. Like Obama and Fred Thompson before him, he's another empty suit propped up by the media. His debate performances have been laughable. Hopefully, primary voters are discerning enough to vote for someone who's more cattle than hat.

He's got a future in cartoons though. He had a look of a scared looney tunes character up there at the debate everytime everyone trained their fire on him. The presidential race is over for him though. Still I dont see Romney winning the nomination. Someone in the lower tier will either rise or someone else will get in.

Yet again tho, the media is pre-emptively telling everyone that this is a Perry v. Romney race. I hate that. That's how we ended up with Obama. His debate performances sucked ass, and yet the media kept saying he was the guy to beat.

Christie gets in?- Though I can't see folks voting for a fat guy. We did have a 320 pound president once - Taft- but there was no TV back in them days. (at least Richard simmonds would finally move to Canada !) - and I cant see Republicans voting for a guy who supported some gun control.

As Perry implodes I reckon Perry supporters will look at Gingrich and Santorum. Folks will decide Gingrich has too much baggage and will focus on Santorum.
I wouldn't be suprised to see Santorum rise.

At any rate with all that confusion I reckon there is a chance the libertarian candidates (Paul / Johnson) can make a real showing. Not win but make real ripple.

Republican primary voters are smarter than Democratic primary voters. With any luck, Paul or Cain will see their star rise. Romney is a bigger flip-flopper joke than Kerry ever was.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Republican primary voters are smarter than Democratic primary voters. With any luck, Paul or Cain will see their star rise. Romney is a bigger flip-flopper joke than Kerry ever was.

As much as I like Paul (and like his kid even more) , I think Gary Johnson is so much of a better spokesman for libertarian issues- much better presented and more focused on what actually can / needs to be done in practice.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Republican primary voters are smarter than Democratic primary voters. With any luck, Paul or Cain will see their star rise. Romney is a bigger flip-flopper joke than Kerry ever was.

As much as I like Paul (and like his kid even more) , I think Gary Johnson is so much of a better spokesman for libertarian issues- much better presented and more focused on what actually can / needs to be done in practice.

From what I saw, Johnson is good, but he's jumping in the race a little late, with shallow campaign funds too.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Republican primary voters are smarter than Democratic primary voters. With any luck, Paul or Cain will see their star rise. Romney is a bigger flip-flopper joke than Kerry ever was.

As much as I like Paul (and like his kid even more) , I think Gary Johnson is so much of a better spokesman for libertarian issues- much better presented and more focused on what actually can / needs to be done in practice.

From what I saw, Johnson is good, but he's jumping in the race a little late, with shallow campaign funds too.

hes been in forever, (eight months at least ) just ignored .

[The_Noble_Cause]

hes been in forever, (eight months at least ) just ignored .

Well, there ya go. I'm assuming the cable channels didn't let him participate in the past debates?

[The_Noble_Cause]

Well, Herman Cain won todays Florida Straw Poll...usually the eventual nominee wins that!

With the exception of some foreign policy gaffes, he's been pretty strong in the debates. Not sure if any economist has looked at his 9-9-9 plan. Doesn't sound feasible to me, but he's clearly a fighter.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Well, Herman Cain won todays Florida Straw Poll...usually the eventual nominee wins that!

With the exception of some foreign policy gaffes, he's been pretty strong in the debates. Not sure if any economist has looked at his 9-9-9 plan. Doesn't sound feasible to me, but he's clearly a fighter.

This could be interesting. Cain is the only one in the field who has the "Ronald Reagan sunny optimism" that is missing and no wing of the party would have a real problem supporting him. Next few weeks are critical for him to prove he can do it.

The 9 9 9 plan is more imaginative than other ones out there and deserves a close look. I prefer Gary Johnson's move abolish all income tax and replace it with a consumption tax (fair tax) . I do fear what President Cains successors might do with 9 9 9- you wouldn't want them to slowly creep the rates up to say 18 18 18 and be stuck with an extra tax and those extra rates.

[conversationpc]

U.S. met with Egypt Islamists: U.S. diplomat

By Edmund Blair

CAIRO | Sun Oct 2, 2011 6:39am EDT

CAIRO (Reuters) - U.S. officials have met members of the Muslim Brotherhood's political party, a U.S. diplomat said, after Washington announced it would have direct contacts with Egypt's biggest Islamist group whose role has grown since U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak was ousted.

This is pretty unbelievable to me...We're seemingly screwing our allies in Israel at just about every turn and then meeting with and giving legitimacy to the Muslim Brotherhood, a known supporter of terrorism.

[conversationpc]

you're gonna need to sell some dude alot of drugs before he'd be interested in buying your body honey....oh....and you might get hired when you learn how to spell.

A college senior with handwriting that looks like something a 2nd grader should be doing and "feild"? Pathetic.

[Behshad]

you're gonna need to sell some dude alot of drugs before he'd be interested in buying your body honey....oh....and you might get hired when you learn how to spell.

A college senior with handwriting that looks like something a 2nd grader should be doing and "feild"? Pathetic.

I guess we could always put the blame on Obama

[Behshad]

U.S. met with Egypt Islamists: U.S. diplomat

By Edmund Blair

CAIRO | Sun Oct 2, 2011 6:39am EDT

CAIRO (Reuters) - U.S. officials have met members of the Muslim Brotherhood's political party, a U.S. diplomat said, after Washington announced it would have direct contacts with Egypt's biggest Islamist group whose role has grown since U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak was ousted.

This is pretty unbelievable to me...We're seemingly screwing our allies in Israel at just about every turn and then meeting with and giving legitimacy to the Muslim Brotherhood, a known supporter of terrorism.

[conversationpc]

U.S. met with Egypt Islamists: U.S. diplomat

By Edmund Blair

CAIRO | Sun Oct 2, 2011 6:39am EDT

CAIRO (Reuters) - U.S. officials have met members of the Muslim Brotherhood's political party, a U.S. diplomat said, after Washington announced it would have direct contacts with Egypt's biggest Islamist group whose role has grown since U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak was ousted.

This is pretty unbelievable to me...We're seemingly screwing our allies in Israel at just about every turn and then meeting with and giving legitimacy to the Muslim Brotherhood, a known supporter of terrorism.

Ummm, yeah, right...Unfortunately, government officials have been heard saying that the Muslim Brotherhood is a peaceful organization. Try again.

[conversationpc]