CNN says voters trust Republicans with the economy....

Bikewer · 14th July 2010, 07:34 AM

Yesterday, CNN reported that polling of independent voters indicated that they trust Republicans more than Democrats with running the economy.

This does seem a little odd to me, since it's generally accepted that the economy went into the tubes during the Republican administrations, and that was largely the result of a lack of regulation and oversight under Republican policies...

I did put up a post in the "social affairs" section about new facts not convincing people with pre-existing notions.... Could this be the case? Are Republicans just "supposed" to be better with money?
Are Democrats "supposed" to be fiscally irresponsible?

I have a hard time reconciling this. One can certainly say that no one seems to have a really good handle on the nation's economics, and that the recovery is not proceeding as rapidly as we'd like, especially in the jobs area.
But to decide that Republicans are to be more trusted? On what basis?

leftysergeant · 14th July 2010, 07:40 AM

Americans are superstitious, I guess.

The Central Scrutinizer · 14th July 2010, 07:45 AM

I don't trust any politician with the economy.

excaza · 14th July 2010, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

I don't trust any politician with the economy.

+1

It's too bad they can't leave politics out of running the country.

lomiller · 14th July 2010, 07:59 AM

Polling that reference “independent” voters is no longer reliable as that term has become a code word for the far right who would never vote or support a democrat under any circumstance. The TEA party, for example, consider themselves “independent” but will of course vote Republican under virtually every conceivable circumstance.

Newtons Bit · 14th July 2010, 08:41 AM

Maybe people aren't as ignorant as we would believe. The two common talking points that I know(feel free to add your own) of "Bush's fault!" are:
1) Bush de-regulated everything.
2) Bush spent too much on the wars.

Much of the de-regulation that caused problems were during the end of the Clinton administration. Clinton signed it and very few lawmakers, democrat or republican opposed it.

Obama is adding somewhere between 4 and 5 times to the national debt that Bush did. Obama's programs that are costing huge amounts of money that are supposed to "Add or Save x number of jobs" just aren't being seen as doing much.

Combine that with the fact that the Democrats have been in charge of the purse-strings since 2006 and it's no wonder that people are starting to feel that you just can't keep blaming Bush forever.

Vorticity · 14th July 2010, 09:49 AM

People are usually in favor of whichever party isn't in power. This is because people have unrealistic expectations of what governments should be able to accomplish, and hence it's always the case that 'the bums in power are incompetent'.

lomiller · 14th July 2010, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

Obama is adding somewhere between 4 and 5 times to the national debt that Bush did.

Not so much

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._President.jpg

Travis · 14th July 2010, 10:16 AM

I guess people prefer "don't tax but spend" vs "tax and spend."

Kthulhut Fhtagn · 14th July 2010, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by Vorticity

People are usually in favor of whichever party isn't in power.

QFT. I've noticed that "independants" and "undecided voters" tend to swing to whichever way isn't in power.

Originally Posted by Travis

I guess people prefer "don't tax but spend" vs "tax and spend."

Also QFT. Americans want generous entitlements but they don't want to pay for them.

Newtons Bit · 14th July 2010, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by lomiller

Not so much

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._President.jpg

Yes, so much. Bush increased the National debt by about 5 trillion in 8 years. Obama had already increased it by about 3 trillion. I'll let you extrapolate that out.

FYI, it doesn't help your arguments to link to a chart that doesn't support your own arguments.

lomiller · 14th July 2010, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

Yes, so much. Bush increased the National debt by about 5 trillion in 8 years. Obama had already increased it by about 3 trillion.

Obama’s 2010 budget shows a $1.1 trillion deficit, down from the $1.4 trillion in Bush’s 2009 budget. Furthermore in 2009 Bush had over $200 billion in off budget spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the US government collected $400 more under Bush's 2009 budget then in Obama’s 2010 budget.

Newtons Bit · 14th July 2010, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by lomiller

Obama’s 2010 budget shows a $1.1 trillion deficit, down from the $1.4 trillion in Bush’s 2009 budget. Furthermore in 2009 Bush had over $200 billion in off budget spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the US government collected $400 more under Bush's 2009 budget then in Obama’s 2010 budget.

I'm talking about actual national debt increases. Not deficits. The deficit is (almost) always smaller than the national debt increases due to off-budget expenditures.

Yes, Obama put the wars on the Budget. Good for him. But those are not the only expenditures Obama is making. He is adding a large number of extra items off-budget.

Quick math: $400/person is $120 billion, or about 6% of Obama's total debt increases for his year and a half. Woo.

leftysergeant · 15th July 2010, 06:48 AM

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

Quick math: $400/person is $120 billion, or about 6% of Obama's total debt increases for his year and a half. Woo.

But Obama is paying for it by not extending the Shrub's tax give aways to the fat class, and spending much of it in ways that preserve or create jobs here. Nobody should care if the stock market tanks, as long as working people are still spending money at the local grocery store.

Nobody should care that a fat-class doofus can't inherit half of the office space in a city if the people who built the office buildings can't even send their kids to college.

We have a deficit becausae a stupid twit with no concept of how a civilized society works threw wheelbarrows full of borrowed money down a rat hole in Iraq and then told the people who should have been paying for it "It's on your grandkids, guys."

Random · 15th July 2010, 07:19 AM

Americans have always believed that Republicans were better for the economy despite all evidence to the contrary. It’s one of our blind spots. We see Republicans representing the rich and assume that since they are so good at making money for the rich, they must know how to make money for everyone. The idea that someone can make money for a small handful of people while making everyone else poorer doesn’t register.

Newtons Bit · 15th July 2010, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

But Obama is paying for it by not extending the Shrub's tax give aways to the fat class, and spending much of it in ways that preserve or create jobs here. Nobody should care if the stock market tanks, as long as working people are still spending money at the local grocery store.

Recall what happened during the Great Depression: the stock market failed, and then people who used to have jobs were standing in soup-lines. The people who own local grocery stores are now what you call the "fat class".

Quote:

Nobody should care that a fat-class doofus can't inherit half of the office space in a city if the people who built the office buildings can't even send their kids to college.

Sure, but this scenario doesn't exist anywhere in the USA that I can think of.

Quote:

We have a deficit becausae a stupid twit with no concept of how a civilized society works threw wheelbarrows full of borrowed money down a rat hole in Iraq and then told the people who should have been paying for it "It's on your grandkids, guys."

The proposed FY 2011 budget by Obama expects a $1,267 billion dollar deficit. The Iraq war is going to cost less than $50 billion. Your argument is bull

.

leftysergeant · 15th July 2010, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by Random

Americans have always believed that Republicans were better for the economy despite all evidence to the contrary. It’s one of our blind spots.

Like I stated earlier here. There are a lot of superstitious Americans.

In a similar fashion, the Republicans have become known as the party of national defense.

Leave aside the fact that they spend too much money on high-tech toys that rarely work out well, too little on caring for the wounded soldiers or their families and disregard centuries of military science and start wars without anything resembling causus belli, I suppose they are.

At least that's what arms merchants tell us.

quarky · 15th July 2010, 08:40 AM

There's only one party.

And its not much fun.

Monketey Ghost · 15th July 2010, 08:47 AM

Americans want generous entitlements but don't want to pay for them.

Both parties seem pretty good at spending money we don't have, and saying the other party does it more.

lomiller · 15th July 2010, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

I'm talking about actual national debt increases. Not deficits. The deficit is (almost) always smaller than the national debt increases due to off-budget expenditures.

What you are doing is buying into the cherry picked facts being spammed in the republican media.

Increases in the nation debt come from two places, budget deficits and off budget expenditures. Of those two the only one the President has a direct say in is the budget, but as I mentioned above Obama is moving away from the abuse of off-budget expenditures seen under Bush. (Like not putting Iraq/Afghanistan into the budget then demanding Congress find money to pay for it anyway)

The most significant off budget expenditures came under Bush, rather then Obama, these being:
Afghanistan/Iraq – was off budget for years under Bush, now part of the budget under Obama

TARP - Necessary but still enacted under Bush but for some reason you and others insist on attributing the debt increase to Obama without even caring that it was enacted under Bush, it’s a one time item, the money is owed to a branch of the US government (the Fed) and program was essential to avoid a complete collapse of the US banking system and a decades long depression.

The Stimulus plan – Another one you and your fellow dupes of the republican media fail to address rationally. While it is the only one connected to Obama and then only because congress didn’t have it ready before Bush left office. Again its one time spending, it’s small by historical standards (in today’s $ the 1981 Reagan Stimulus was twice as large) and despite the political dogma most economists agree it was required.

If you have any other off budget items that can increase the debt above and beyond what’s in the Budget by all means itemized them, but in general asking a “conservative” to propose real spending cuts is like speaking to a brick wall, they just ain’t going to answer.

lomiller · 15th July 2010, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

Recall what happened during the Great Depression: the stock market failed, and then people who used to have jobs were standing in soup-lines. The people who own local grocery stores are now what you call the "fat class".

The 1930’s had the largest disparity between rich and poor of any period in recent American history. Today’s gap is getting close though.

Newtons Bit · 15th July 2010, 10:04 AM

lomiller: you are becoming increasingly non-sequitur. You've yet to address any of the points I've made.

JoeTheJuggler · 15th July 2010, 10:06 AM

I wouldn't equate "independent voters" with "voters" and certainly not with "Americans".

If there were a trend of several polls coming up with this result, I'd consider it to be more meaningful, but taken on its own, I wouldn't put much stock in it.

Ziggurat · 15th July 2010, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by Bikewer

This does seem a little odd to me, since it's generally accepted that the economy went into the tubes during the Republican administrations

Maybe it's not "generally accepted".

Quote:

I did put up a post in the "social affairs" section about new facts not convincing people with pre-existing notions.... Could this be the case?

Indeed, it is the case: you've got a new fact about public opinion, and you're not convinced because you've got a pre-existing notion about what is "generally accepted".

Quote:

Are Republicans just "supposed" to be better with money?
Are Democrats "supposed" to be fiscally irresponsible?

The democrats are in charge, and the economy is in the crapper. Therefore, the public trusts someone other than the democrats more than they trust the democrats. Quite simple, really. I don't know why you expect any more than that.

Quote:

I have a hard time reconciling this.

Of course you do: new facts don't convince you because you've got a pre-existing notion about what other people must think.

MikeMangum · 15th July 2010, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by lomiller

Not so much

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._President.jpg

I guess the irony is lost on you. Look at that graph again, keeping in mind which party controlled Congress at what time...the branch of government actually tasked with enacting a budget.

MikeMangum · 15th July 2010, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by Random

Americans have always believed that Republicans were better for the economy despite all evidence to the contrary. It’s one of our blind spots. We see Republicans representing the rich and assume that since they are so good at making money for the rich, they must know how to make money for everyone. The idea that someone can make money for a small handful of people while making everyone else poorer doesn’t register.

Uh no. Republicans don't represent 'the rich', they represent the market, which includes the family operating the taco truck down the corner, the guy who is trying to start up a custom software company, the guy running a small landscape maintenance company, etc.

Recent Democratic economic policy seems to be a funky mixture of Corporatism^WP and Crony capitalism^WP, which has the side effect of acting as a barrier to entry for newcomers to markets. It is not really a design of current Democratic economic policy to favor the rich (with the exception of the party's constant protection of the legal industry), but it is a side effect.

NoScotsman · 15th July 2010, 12:34 PM

The true test of Obama's economic policies won't be seen for a few years. I am comforted by the fact that most economists agree with the stimulus, tarp, etc.

The public perception of Obama's policies, however, is rock bottom. Most people don't understand the necessity of spending your way out out of an economic downturn. In fact, it's not just lay people who are ignorant... right now, it's most of Europe's political leaders.

Juniversal · 15th July 2010, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

The democrats are in charge, and the economy is in the crapper. Therefore, the public trusts someone other than the democrats more than they trust the democrats. Quite simple, really. I don't know why you expect any more than that.

Most Americans are clearly extremely short sighted and gluttons for punishment. The economies BEEN in the crapper. This Administration has the daunting task of reversing the economic decline created during the past administration. I'm sure Americans would appreciate the spending if they realized without it this recession would potentially be a depression or unemployement as bad as it is, could be maginitudes worse.

Originally Posted by NoScotsman

The true test of Obama's economic policies won't be seen for a few years. I am comforted by the fact that most economists agree with the stimulus, tarp, etc.

The public perception of Obama's policies, however, is rock bottom. Most people don't understand the necessity of spending your way out out of an economic downturn. In fact, it's not just lay people who are ignorant... right now, it's most of Europe's political leaders.

True say...

INRM · 15th July 2010, 01:06 PM

I don't trust the Republicans at all, and while it's true the economy went down the tubes when they were in charge, they realize we live in the United States of Amnesia, and so long as they complain and moan about Obama everyone will forget about Bush.

Just blame the past administration if you're in power, or blame the current administration in power if you're not, and assume that everybody will forget about all the crap you did or are doing. The sad thing is, this strategy actually works.

thaiboxerken · 15th July 2010, 03:17 PM

I think the poll just shows that most CNN viewers are morons.

lomiller · 15th July 2010, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by MikeMangum

Look at that graph again, keeping in mind which party controlled Congress at what time...the branch of government actually tasked with enacting a budget.

Congress can amend the budget but they do not write it, the President does.

lomiller · 15th July 2010, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by MikeMangum

Republicans don't represent 'the rich', they represent the market,

unless the market works against their campaign contributors in which case they are firmly against it...

Ziggurat · 15th July 2010, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by Juniversal

Most Americans are clearly extremely short sighted and gluttons for punishment. The economies BEEN in the crapper. This Administration has the daunting task of reversing the economic decline created during the past administration. I'm sure Americans would appreciate the spending if they realized without it this recession would potentially be a depression or unemployement as bad as it is, could be maginitudes worse.

That's if they believed it. But really, why should they? Why should the public have any faith that the experts and politicians know what they're talking about in regards to the economy? There simply isn't a track record to support significant faith in their arguments. I can't help but be reminded of this demotivator.

You say it's short sighted, but the fact of the matter is, kicking politicians out of power when things get worse is a pretty common-sense approach. Argue all you want to about why it shouldn't be applied right now, but the principle does more good than harm. And whoever you want to blame for the economy, it HAS been getting worse in the ways that actually matter to people under Obama and the democrats.

Ziggurat · 15th July 2010, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by lomiller

Congress can amend the budget but they do not write it, the President does.

No. The president submits a proposal. The proposal can be changed, ignored, rewritten from scratch, whatever congress wants. Congress has total authority on spending. Their deference to the president does not absolve them of responsibility.

leftysergeant · 15th July 2010, 09:17 PM

Originally Posted by NoScotsman

In fact, it's not just lay people who are ignorant... right now, it's most of Europe's political leaders.

It isn't ignorance. It is superstition. Thatcher broke the system and then called herself "repairing" it, just like Reagan.

And people bought it because they saw a few people get lucky.

Bikewer · 15th July 2010, 09:34 PM

I don't claim to know anything meaningful about economics, but I have begun to suspect that perhaps no one does.
Well, maybe not "no one", but I have listened to any number of my favorite NPR "talk" programs on various aspects of the economy. Jobs, taxes, deficits... Whatever. Usually, they will have at least two "authorities" on, seemingly well-educated fellows with prestigious degrees and recognized expertise.
These individuals will invariably take polar opposite sides and cite the very same studies and data and such to come to exactly the opposite conclusion.
This happens so frequently that one host (Diane Rehm) said in frustration during one of these exchanges, "how is the average citizen to make any sense of this if the experts can't even agree on fundamental points?"
Indeed, how?
We are told that much of a nation's prosperity is based not so much on hard goods produced and profits earned and taxes collected but on the "confidence" of investors and whether they are willing to invest or frightened enough to sit on their money.

ProBonoShill · 15th July 2010, 09:36 PM

Maybe CNN viewers recently watched this video:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

fishbob · 16th July 2010, 12:51 AM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

I think the poll just shows that most CNN viewers are morons.

By Jove, I think he's got it.

Frank327 · 16th July 2010, 08:59 AM

I think it's mostly because safety and economy are the two big focus points of any republican or right wing politician in general. Democrats and other left wingers on the other hand, pay more attention to public education, health, and social safety nets. People make the logical conclusion that republicans spend their time doing things to improve the economy, whereas democrats spend time improving other things.

Of course, in practice talking about a subject a lot doesn't mean you're the authority on it. Actually, it's often the inverse that's true. As far as I'm concerned, most republican presidents have inherited a fairly strong economy, and still managed to drive up deficits in the past decades.

ZirconBlue · 16th July 2010, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by Bikewer

Are Republicans just "supposed" to be better with money?

Yes. That is the common perception. But, basically the equation is

economy bad --> vote for the other party

14th July 2010, 07:34 AM	#1
Bikewer Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St. Louis, Mo. Posts: 9,528	CNN says voters trust Republicans with the economy.... Yesterday, CNN reported that polling of independent voters indicated that they trust Republicans more than Democrats with running the economy. This does seem a little odd to me, since it's generally accepted that the economy went into the tubes during the Republican administrations, and that was largely the result of a lack of regulation and oversight under Republican policies... I did put up a post in the "social affairs" section about new facts not convincing people with pre-existing notions.... Could this be the case? Are Republicans just "supposed" to be better with money? Are Democrats "supposed" to be fiscally irresponsible? I have a hard time reconciling this. One can certainly say that no one seems to have a really good handle on the nation's economics, and that the recovery is not proceeding as rapidly as we'd like, especially in the jobs area. But to decide that Republicans are to be more trusted? On what basis?

14th July 2010, 07:45 AM	#3
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Pither Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,277	I don't trust any politician with the economy.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

14th July 2010, 07:56 AM	#4
excaza Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Boston Posts: 3,632	Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer I don't trust any politician with the economy. +1 It's too bad they can't leave politics out of running the country.
	__________________

14th July 2010, 07:59 AM	#5
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,866	Polling that reference “independent” voters is no longer reliable as that term has become a code word for the far right who would never vote or support a democrat under any circumstance. The TEA party, for example, consider themselves “independent” but will of course vote Republican under virtually every conceivable circumstance.
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,866	__________________ "Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

14th July 2010, 08:41 AM	#6
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,897	Maybe people aren't as ignorant as we would believe. The two common talking points that I know(feel free to add your own) of "Bush's fault!" are: 1) Bush de-regulated everything. 2) Bush spent too much on the wars. Much of the de-regulation that caused problems were during the end of the Clinton administration. Clinton signed it and very few lawmakers, democrat or republican opposed it. Obama is adding somewhere between 4 and 5 times to the national debt that Bush did. Obama's programs that are costing huge amounts of money that are supposed to "Add or Save x number of jobs" just aren't being seen as doing much. Combine that with the fact that the Democrats have been in charge of the purse-strings since 2006 and it's no wonder that people are starting to feel that you just can't keep blaming Bush forever.
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,897	__________________ "Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein My website.

14th July 2010, 07:40 AM	#2
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	Americans are superstitious, I guess.

14th July 2010, 09:49 AM	#7
Vorticity Fluid Mechanic Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Los Alamos, NM Posts: 2,651	People are usually in favor of whichever party isn't in power. This is because people have unrealistic expectations of what governments should be able to accomplish, and hence it's always the case that 'the bums in power are incompetent'.
	__________________ Free lunch. Final wisdom. Total coverage. http://stopsylvia.com

14th July 2010, 10:02 AM	#8
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,866	Originally Posted by Newtons Bit Obama is adding somewhere between 4 and 5 times to the national debt that Bush did. Not so much http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._President.jpg
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,866	__________________ "Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

14th July 2010, 10:16 AM	#9
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 17,944	I guess people prefer "don't tax but spend" vs "tax and spend."
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy

14th July 2010, 11:11 AM	#10
Kthulhut Fhtagn Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Somewhere in time and space... Posts: 1,939	Originally Posted by Vorticity People are usually in favor of whichever party isn't in power. QFT. I've noticed that "independants" and "undecided voters" tend to swing to whichever way isn't in power. Originally Posted by Travis I guess people prefer "don't tax but spend" vs "tax and spend." Also QFT. Americans want generous entitlements but they don't want to pay for them.
	__________________ -- Everything starts somewhere, although many physicists disagree. There is the constant desire to find out where - where is the point where it all began...The philosopher Didactylos suggested an alternative hypothesis: 'things just happen, what the hell'. Last edited by Kthulhut Fhtagn; 14th July 2010 at 11:13 AM.

14th July 2010, 11:57 AM	#11
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,897	Originally Posted by lomiller Not so much http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._President.jpg Yes, so much. Bush increased the National debt by about 5 trillion in 8 years. Obama had already increased it by about 3 trillion. I'll let you extrapolate that out. FYI, it doesn't help your arguments to link to a chart that doesn't support your own arguments.
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,897	__________________ "Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein My website.

14th July 2010, 02:28 PM	#12
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,866	Originally Posted by Newtons Bit Yes, so much. Bush increased the National debt by about 5 trillion in 8 years. Obama had already increased it by about 3 trillion. Obama’s 2010 budget shows a $1.1 trillion deficit, down from the $1.4 trillion in Bush’s 2009 budget. Furthermore in 2009 Bush had over $200 billion in off budget spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the US government collected $400 more under Bush's 2009 budget then in Obama’s 2010 budget.
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,866	__________________ "Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

14th July 2010, 03:59 PM	#13
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,897	Originally Posted by lomiller Obama’s 2010 budget shows a $1.1 trillion deficit, down from the $1.4 trillion in Bush’s 2009 budget. Furthermore in 2009 Bush had over $200 billion in off budget spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the US government collected $400 more under Bush's 2009 budget then in Obama’s 2010 budget. I'm talking about actual national debt increases. Not deficits. The deficit is (almost) always smaller than the national debt increases due to off-budget expenditures. Yes, Obama put the wars on the Budget. Good for him. But those are not the only expenditures Obama is making. He is adding a large number of extra items off-budget. Quick math: $400/person is $120 billion, or about 6% of Obama's total debt increases for his year and a half. Woo.
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,897	__________________ "Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein My website.

15th July 2010, 06:48 AM	#14
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	Originally Posted by Newtons Bit Quick math: $400/person is $120 billion, or about 6% of Obama's total debt increases for his year and a half. Woo. But Obama is paying for it by not extending the Shrub's tax give aways to the fat class, and spending much of it in ways that preserve or create jobs here. Nobody should care if the stock market tanks, as long as working people are still spending money at the local grocery store. Nobody should care that a fat-class doofus can't inherit half of the office space in a city if the people who built the office buildings can't even send their kids to college. We have a deficit becausae a stupid twit with no concept of how a civilized society works threw wheelbarrows full of borrowed money down a rat hole in Iraq and then told the people who should have been paying for it "It's on your grandkids, guys."

15th July 2010, 07:19 AM	#15
Random Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 2,463	Americans have always believed that Republicans were better for the economy despite all evidence to the contrary. It’s one of our blind spots. We see Republicans representing the rich and assume that since they are so good at making money for the rich, they must know how to make money for everyone. The idea that someone can make money for a small handful of people while making everyone else poorer doesn’t register.
	__________________ ...So, the next time you find yourself desperately Googling for some factual example that proves your argument is right, and failing to find even one, stop. See if you can put the brakes on and actually say, out loud, "Wait a second. If the things I'm saying in order to bolster my argument are consistently wrong, then maybe my argument is also wrong." -Cracked

15th July 2010, 08:20 AM	#16
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,897	Originally Posted by leftysergeant But Obama is paying for it by not extending the Shrub's tax give aways to the fat class, and spending much of it in ways that preserve or create jobs here. Nobody should care if the stock market tanks, as long as working people are still spending money at the local grocery store. Recall what happened during the Great Depression: the stock market failed, and then people who used to have jobs were standing in soup-lines. The people who own local grocery stores are now what you call the "fat class". Quote: Nobody should care that a fat-class doofus can't inherit half of the office space in a city if the people who built the office buildings can't even send their kids to college. Sure, but this scenario doesn't exist anywhere in the USA that I can think of. Quote: We have a deficit becausae a stupid twit with no concept of how a civilized society works threw wheelbarrows full of borrowed money down a rat hole in Iraq and then told the people who should have been paying for it "It's on your grandkids, guys." The proposed FY 2011 budget by Obama expects a $1,267 billion dollar deficit. The Iraq war is going to cost less than $50 billion. Your argument is bull.
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,897	__________________ "Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein My website.

15th July 2010, 08:20 AM	#17
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	Originally Posted by Random Americans have always believed that Republicans were better for the economy despite all evidence to the contrary. It’s one of our blind spots. Like I stated earlier here. There are a lot of superstitious Americans. In a similar fashion, the Republicans have become known as the party of national defense. Leave aside the fact that they spend too much money on high-tech toys that rarely work out well, too little on caring for the wounded soldiers or their families and disregard centuries of military science and start wars without anything resembling causus belli, I suppose they are. At least that's what arms merchants tell us.

15th July 2010, 08:40 AM	#18
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454	There's only one party. And its not much fun.
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454

15th July 2010, 08:47 AM	#19
Monketey Ghost Body of Work Join Date: May 2003 Location: I'm on your screen! Posts: 14,807	Americans want generous entitlements but don't want to pay for them. Both parties seem pretty good at spending money we don't have, and saying the other party does it more.
	__________________ _{The membership of this forum is henceforth to refer to me as potato-headed Bobby} _{SSKCAS, member in long standing}

15th July 2010, 09:11 AM	#20
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,866	Originally Posted by Newtons Bit I'm talking about actual national debt increases. Not deficits. The deficit is (almost) always smaller than the national debt increases due to off-budget expenditures. What you are doing is buying into the cherry picked facts being spammed in the republican media. Increases in the nation debt come from two places, budget deficits and off budget expenditures. Of those two the only one the President has a direct say in is the budget, but as I mentioned above Obama is moving away from the abuse of off-budget expenditures seen under Bush. (Like not putting Iraq/Afghanistan into the budget then demanding Congress find money to pay for it anyway) The most significant off budget expenditures came under Bush, rather then Obama, these being: Afghanistan/Iraq – was off budget for years under Bush, now part of the budget under Obama TARP - Necessary but still enacted under Bush but for some reason you and others insist on attributing the debt increase to Obama without even caring that it was enacted under Bush, it’s a one time item, the money is owed to a branch of the US government (the Fed) and program was essential to avoid a complete collapse of the US banking system and a decades long depression. The Stimulus plan – Another one you and your fellow dupes of the republican media fail to address rationally. While it is the only one connected to Obama and then only because congress didn’t have it ready before Bush left office. Again its one time spending, it’s small by historical standards (in today’s $ the 1981 Reagan Stimulus was twice as large) and despite the political dogma most economists agree it was required. If you have any other off budget items that can increase the debt above and beyond what’s in the Budget by all means itemized them, but in general asking a “conservative” to propose real spending cuts is like speaking to a brick wall, they just ain’t going to answer.
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,866	__________________ "Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

15th July 2010, 09:14 AM	#21
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,866	Originally Posted by Newtons Bit Recall what happened during the Great Depression: the stock market failed, and then people who used to have jobs were standing in soup-lines. The people who own local grocery stores are now what you call the "fat class". The 1930’s had the largest disparity between rich and poor of any period in recent American history. Today’s gap is getting close though.
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,866	__________________ "Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

15th July 2010, 10:04 AM	#22
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,897	lomiller: you are becoming increasingly non-sequitur. You've yet to address any of the points I've made.
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,897	__________________ "Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein My website.

15th July 2010, 10:06 AM	#23
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,774	I wouldn't equate "independent voters" with "voters" and certainly not with "Americans". If there were a trend of several polls coming up with this result, I'd consider it to be more meaningful, but taken on its own, I wouldn't put much stock in it.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

15th July 2010, 10:15 AM	#24
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,199	Originally Posted by Bikewer This does seem a little odd to me, since it's generally accepted that the economy went into the tubes during the Republican administrations Maybe it's not "generally accepted". Quote: I did put up a post in the "social affairs" section about new facts not convincing people with pre-existing notions.... Could this be the case? Indeed, it is the case: you've got a new fact about public opinion, and you're not convinced because you've got a pre-existing notion about what is "generally accepted". Quote: Are Republicans just "supposed" to be better with money? Are Democrats "supposed" to be fiscally irresponsible? The democrats are in charge, and the economy is in the crapper. Therefore, the public trusts someone other than the democrats more than they trust the democrats. Quite simple, really. I don't know why you expect any more than that. Quote: I have a hard time reconciling this. Of course you do: new facts don't convince you because you've got a pre-existing notion about what other people must think.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

15th July 2010, 12:04 PM	#25
MikeMangum Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 1,725	Originally Posted by lomiller Not so much http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._President.jpg I guess the irony is lost on you. Look at that graph again, keeping in mind which party controlled Congress at what time...the branch of government actually tasked with enacting a budget.
	__________________ "If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all!" -- Henry A. Waxman, U.S. Congressman (D-CA)

15th July 2010, 12:17 PM	#26
MikeMangum Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 1,725	Originally Posted by Random Americans have always believed that Republicans were better for the economy despite all evidence to the contrary. It’s one of our blind spots. We see Republicans representing the rich and assume that since they are so good at making money for the rich, they must know how to make money for everyone. The idea that someone can make money for a small handful of people while making everyone else poorer doesn’t register. Uh no. Republicans don't represent 'the rich', they represent the market, which includes the family operating the taco truck down the corner, the guy who is trying to start up a custom software company, the guy running a small landscape maintenance company, etc. Recent Democratic economic policy seems to be a funky mixture of Corporatism^WP and Crony capitalism^WP, which has the side effect of acting as a barrier to entry for newcomers to markets. It is not really a design of current Democratic economic policy to favor the rich (with the exception of the party's constant protection of the legal industry), but it is a side effect.
	__________________ "If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all!" -- Henry A. Waxman, U.S. Congressman (D-CA)

15th July 2010, 12:34 PM	#27
NoScotsman Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 292	The true test of Obama's economic policies won't be seen for a few years. I am comforted by the fact that most economists agree with the stimulus, tarp, etc. The public perception of Obama's policies, however, is rock bottom. Most people don't understand the necessity of spending your way out out of an economic downturn. In fact, it's not just lay people who are ignorant... right now, it's most of Europe's political leaders.
	Last edited by NoScotsman; 15th July 2010 at 12:36 PM.

15th July 2010, 12:58 PM	#28
Juniversal CIA + FBI + NWO Employee Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Cincinnati, USA Posts: 1,845	Originally Posted by Ziggurat The democrats are in charge, and the economy is in the crapper. Therefore, the public trusts someone other than the democrats more than they trust the democrats. Quite simple, really. I don't know why you expect any more than that. Most Americans are clearly extremely short sighted and gluttons for punishment. The economies BEEN in the crapper. This Administration has the daunting task of reversing the economic decline created during the past administration. I'm sure Americans would appreciate the spending if they realized without it this recession would potentially be a depression or unemployement as bad as it is, could be maginitudes worse. Originally Posted by NoScotsman The true test of Obama's economic policies won't be seen for a few years. I am comforted by the fact that most economists agree with the stimulus, tarp, etc. The public perception of Obama's policies, however, is rock bottom. Most people don't understand the necessity of spending your way out out of an economic downturn. In fact, it's not just lay people who are ignorant... right now, it's most of Europe's political leaders. True say...
	__________________ "God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance." - Neil deGrasse Tyson

15th July 2010, 01:06 PM	#29
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	I don't trust the Republicans at all, and while it's true the economy went down the tubes when they were in charge, they realize we live in the United States of Amnesia, and so long as they complain and moan about Obama everyone will forget about Bush. Just blame the past administration if you're in power, or blame the current administration in power if you're not, and assume that everybody will forget about all the crap you did or are doing. The sad thing is, this strategy actually works.
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490

15th July 2010, 03:17 PM	#30
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,965	I think the poll just shows that most CNN viewers are morons.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

15th July 2010, 03:26 PM	#31
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,866	Originally Posted by MikeMangum Look at that graph again, keeping in mind which party controlled Congress at what time...the branch of government actually tasked with enacting a budget. Congress can amend the budget but they do not write it, the President does.
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,866	__________________ "Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

15th July 2010, 03:28 PM	#32
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,866	Originally Posted by MikeMangum Republicans don't represent 'the rich', they represent the market, unless the market works against their campaign contributors in which case they are firmly against it...
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,866	__________________ "Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

15th July 2010, 03:35 PM	#33
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,199	Originally Posted by Juniversal Most Americans are clearly extremely short sighted and gluttons for punishment. The economies BEEN in the crapper. This Administration has the daunting task of reversing the economic decline created during the past administration. I'm sure Americans would appreciate the spending if they realized without it this recession would potentially be a depression or unemployement as bad as it is, could be maginitudes worse. That's if they believed it. But really, why should they? Why should the public have any faith that the experts and politicians know what they're talking about in regards to the economy? There simply isn't a track record to support significant faith in their arguments. I can't help but be reminded of this demotivator. You say it's short sighted, but the fact of the matter is, kicking politicians out of power when things get worse is a pretty common-sense approach. Argue all you want to about why it shouldn't be applied right now, but the principle does more good than harm. And whoever you want to blame for the economy, it HAS been getting worse in the ways that actually matter to people under Obama and the democrats.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

15th July 2010, 03:38 PM	#34
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,199	Originally Posted by lomiller Congress can amend the budget but they do not write it, the President does. No. The president submits a proposal. The proposal can be changed, ignored, rewritten from scratch, whatever congress wants. Congress has total authority on spending. Their deference to the president does not absolve them of responsibility.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

15th July 2010, 09:17 PM	#35
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	Originally Posted by NoScotsman In fact, it's not just lay people who are ignorant... right now, it's most of Europe's political leaders. It isn't ignorance. It is superstition. Thatcher broke the system and then called herself "repairing" it, just like Reagan. And people bought it because they saw a few people get lucky.