So the Democrats win a house seat that the GOP has had since the Civil War and you are crowing?
Virginia voted a governor in whose party is opposite the White House occupant for the ninth straight time (36 years) and that means what?
John Corzine - someone I admire but who is admittedly unpopular at home - loses. And that has national implications? A former wall street banker is ousted a year after Lehman and you think that speaks well for your party? The Republican who won is a moderate. What will Sarah say?
Dick Morris would run back into the arms of Hillary Clinton and the Dems, if only they'd have him.
Socialism wasn't on the ballot in VA. The winner won on "Bob's for Jobs" and downplayed his social conservatism. In fact, he renounced much of the conservative dribble that he wrote in the past. Perhaps, Jim, some day you will do the same thing. :)
Rich, it is always hilarious to see someone clutching at straws. Can you tell us how ,amy times the great Obamamesiah traveled to New Jersey to help Corzine? There has not been a Republican Governor in New Jersey since Christine Todd Whitman. This state is now so heavily Democratic and union controlled that the Republicans couldn't even win after the McGreevey scandals. Corzine outspent Christie by huge sums of money yet still lost even with a third party cadidate siphoning off votes from him.
It is all about the jobless so-called recovery and there is no end in sight for this problem. Keynsian economic theory is showing us that it deserves the ash heap of history. As long as the Dems keep moving down this road of creating massive entitlement programs which keep increasing the deficit and do nothing to help the engine of the economy, the so called capitalistic pigs in your and Terry's vernacular, that the American voters will continue to vote liberals out.
"Clutching at straws"? Obama briefly visited three times. Corzine has a 30% approval rating a year ago. You thought a sitting governor would pick up support in the midst of the deepest recession in 80 years?
You are complaining about a jobless recovery? How many jobs did George W Bush (R) pick up in his first four years? 119,000 total - the worst showing since Hoover (R). So much for supply side theory, huh?
How many jobs were we losing per month when Obama took the oath of office? 750,000. How many now? Just over 200,000. Obama has improved the situation over 500,000 jobs per month in just 9 months - hardly an indictment of Keynes.
Whitman was governor of NJ until 2001 - not long ago in the scheme of things. Someone may be clutching at straws, but it ain't me.
What I think the average guy will understand, however, is that Obama promised to keep unemployment at 8%, which I think proves that he was inexperienced and, like many academicians, smarter than he is wise. On-the-job training is not pretty to watch. Obama will pay the price for high unemployment next November.
The average guy will also get, even if he accepts Obam's specious claim of 600,000 "saved jobs" (a metric that does not exist is serious discussions), that those jobs were saved at about $250,000 per. Hey, we could have given 1,500,000 people a grant of $100,000 each and been better off. Being Good Americans, they would have gone out and spent it on stuff (Consumerism!!!) and the whole country would have been better off.
The stimulus will look expensive and dumb in the rear view mirror.
I keep hearing Obama "promised" to keep unemployment under 8% - I think the word promise is cynically misused in this context. If I break a promise, that is a defect of character. If I fail to achieve a goal or my forecast falls short, that is quite another thing.
I love Jared Bernstein and his "saved job" data. When funds are provided to municipalities specifically to prevent layoffs of teachers, doctors, cops and bureaucrats, those are "saved jobs" any way you slice it.
I am a long time deficit hawk. That said, I was quite happy to see money thrown at problems in this deep recession. Direct spending is stimulative per se. There was and is no point in pushing on the string of tax cuts. Once we are unambiguously in recovery, meaningful deficit reduction will be job one. It won't just be politically important, the financial markets will require it.
My forecast (not to be confused with promise): 2010 will bring an ever strengthening economy with Fed rate hikes as early as June or perhaps just after the election. Unemployment will remain stubbornly high but begin to slightly turn down midyear. The Democrats will benefit at the polls with modest losses in the House and Senate.
Obama will get to spend 2011 and 2012 dealing with the consequences of a growing economy and mountains of debt, which will grow more expensive as rates rise.
Bonus, out-on-a-limb prediction: 2011 will bring meaningful and unpopular entitlement reform as it is the only real way to get a handle on current and future federal budgets. We will see age eligibility gradually pushed out for both large programs and perhaps needs testing with respect to Medicare rates.
I think the importance of the "broken promise" is that it demonstrates Obama"s naiviety or his duplicity, take your pick.
"Saved jobs" is self-reported data. People want to report that jobs are saved so they get more funding. No doubt some jobs were saved, but the number is skewed. There is no such BLS statistic.
No doubt spending is stimulative. There is plenty of room for both of us to find lots wrong with the bill that was written, however. Way too much pork.
I agree that the economy will get better and that Obama will benefit when he runs again. As to next year, I think you express more hope than conviction. Time will tell.
I agree with you regarding entitlement reform. People used to be willing to retire at 65 and die before they were 70. Now we let government employees work 30 years, and private citizens work 40 to 45 years, but then they insist on living to 80 and beyond. The math doesn't work.
8 comments:
So the Democrats win a house seat that the GOP has had since the Civil War and you are crowing?
Virginia voted a governor in whose party is opposite the White House occupant for the ninth straight time (36 years) and that means what?
John Corzine - someone I admire but who is admittedly unpopular at home - loses. And that has national implications? A former wall street banker is ousted a year after Lehman and you think that speaks well for your party? The Republican who won is a moderate. What will Sarah say?
No, I am crowing because the Red State Virginia is returning home having rejected Socialism.
What this does is send a shiver down the spines (if they have them) of the Dems in other Red States.
Point courtesy of Dick Morris.
It also means that Blue States, filled to the brink with taxes and unemployment will recect Socialism for the promise of Freedom and economic growth.
Big, berry berry big.
Dick Morris would run back into the arms of Hillary Clinton and the Dems, if only they'd have him.
Socialism wasn't on the ballot in VA. The winner won on "Bob's for Jobs" and downplayed his social conservatism. In fact, he renounced much of the conservative dribble that he wrote in the past. Perhaps, Jim, some day you will do the same thing. :)
Rich, it is always hilarious to see someone clutching at straws. Can you tell us how ,amy times the great Obamamesiah traveled to New Jersey to help Corzine? There has not been a Republican Governor in New Jersey since Christine Todd Whitman. This state is now so heavily Democratic and union controlled that the Republicans couldn't even win after the McGreevey scandals. Corzine outspent Christie by huge sums of money yet still lost even with a third party cadidate siphoning off votes from him.
It is all about the jobless so-called recovery and there is no end in sight for this problem. Keynsian economic theory is showing us that it deserves the ash heap of history. As long as the Dems keep moving down this road of creating massive entitlement programs which keep increasing the deficit and do nothing to help the engine of the economy, the so called capitalistic pigs in your and Terry's vernacular, that the American voters will continue to vote liberals out.
"Clutching at straws"? Obama briefly visited three times. Corzine has a 30% approval rating a year ago. You thought a sitting governor would pick up support in the midst of the deepest recession in 80 years?
You are complaining about a jobless recovery? How many jobs did George W Bush (R) pick up in his first four years? 119,000 total - the worst showing since Hoover (R). So much for supply side theory, huh?
How many jobs were we losing per month when Obama took the oath of office? 750,000. How many now? Just over 200,000. Obama has improved the situation over 500,000 jobs per month in just 9 months - hardly an indictment of Keynes.
Whitman was governor of NJ until 2001 - not long ago in the scheme of things. Someone may be clutching at straws, but it ain't me.
Jobs come late in a recovery; we all know that.
What I think the average guy will understand, however, is that Obama promised to keep unemployment at 8%, which I think proves that he was inexperienced and, like many academicians, smarter than he is wise. On-the-job training is not pretty to watch. Obama will pay the price for high unemployment next November.
The average guy will also get, even if he accepts Obam's specious claim of 600,000 "saved jobs" (a metric that does not exist is serious discussions), that those jobs were saved at about $250,000 per. Hey, we could have given 1,500,000 people a grant of $100,000 each and been better off. Being Good Americans, they would have gone out and spent it on stuff (Consumerism!!!) and the whole country would have been better off.
The stimulus will look expensive and dumb in the rear view mirror.
Hags
Hags:
I keep hearing Obama "promised" to keep unemployment under 8% - I think the word promise is cynically misused in this context. If I break a promise, that is a defect of character. If I fail to achieve a goal or my forecast falls short, that is quite another thing.
I love Jared Bernstein and his "saved job" data. When funds are provided to municipalities specifically to prevent layoffs of teachers, doctors, cops and bureaucrats, those are "saved jobs" any way you slice it.
I am a long time deficit hawk. That said, I was quite happy to see money thrown at problems in this deep recession. Direct spending is stimulative per se. There was and is no point in pushing on the string of tax cuts. Once we are unambiguously in recovery, meaningful deficit reduction will be job one. It won't just be politically important, the financial markets will require it.
My forecast (not to be confused with promise): 2010 will bring an ever strengthening economy with Fed rate hikes as early as June or perhaps just after the election. Unemployment will remain stubbornly high but begin to slightly turn down midyear. The Democrats will benefit at the polls with modest losses in the House and Senate.
Obama will get to spend 2011 and 2012 dealing with the consequences of a growing economy and mountains of debt, which will grow more expensive as rates rise.
Bonus, out-on-a-limb prediction: 2011 will bring meaningful and unpopular entitlement reform as it is the only real way to get a handle on current and future federal budgets. We will see age eligibility gradually pushed out for both large programs and perhaps needs testing with respect to Medicare rates.
Bax,
I think the importance of the "broken promise" is that it demonstrates Obama"s naiviety or his duplicity, take your pick.
"Saved jobs" is self-reported data. People want to report that jobs are saved so they get more funding. No doubt some jobs were saved, but the number is skewed. There is no such BLS statistic.
No doubt spending is stimulative. There is plenty of room for both of us to find lots wrong with the bill that was written, however. Way too much pork.
I agree that the economy will get better and that Obama will benefit when he runs again. As to next year, I think you express more hope than conviction. Time will tell.
I agree with you regarding entitlement reform. People used to be willing to retire at 65 and die before they were 70. Now we let government employees work 30 years, and private citizens work 40 to 45 years, but then they insist on living to 80 and beyond. The math doesn't work.
Hags
Post a Comment