Addendum: Some pundit comments.
Eszra Klein:
1. Both Democrats and conservatives are going to get the exact debate they wanted. I’m not so sure about Republicans.
2. This is an admission of fear from the Romney campaign. You don’t make a risky pick like Paul Ryan if you think the fundamentals favor your candidate. You make a risky pick like Paul Ryan if you think the fundamentals don’t favor your candidate. And, right now, the numbers don’t look good for Romney: Obama leads in the Real Clear Politics average of polls by more than four percentage points — his largest lead since April.
When a prudent candidate like Mitt Romney picks someone like Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin as his running mate, it suggests that he felt he held a losing position against President Obama. The theme that Mr. Romney’s campaign has emphasized for months and months — that the president has failed as an economic leader — may have persuaded 47 or 48 or 49 percent of voters to back him, he seems to have concluded. But not 50.1 percent of them, and not enough for Mr. Romney to secure 270 electoral votes.
There’s an argument that the three polls out yesterday giving Obama an outside-the-margin-of-error lead could also spur a game-changing pick a la Ryan. “The conventional wisdom had been that Romney was going to be picking a running mate in a coin-flip race. Well that’s not the case now. How does that change his mind? Does it help Paul Ryan?” asks “First Read,” adding that Romney has gone from picking a running mate from a position of strength to “picking one from a position of weakness.” That seems a bit strong, especially based on one set of polls. Does the Romney team want to exacerbate a perception of weakness by making what could be seen as a panicky pick (a sop to a jittery base, a Hail Mary in the face of a widening gap in the polls, and a whiplash-inducing strategic change from deliberate policy vagueness to a highly controversial off-the-shelf economic agenda).
Seems to be a consensus.
On the upside for Romney, it may bring Wisconsin back into play.
65 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 11, 2012 at 2:46 pm
Anonymous
In that I don’t think that Romney had much of a chance before and don’t think he has much chance now, I can’t look at the addition of Ryan as throwing the election. Mostly I’m glad about this because a Romney presidency is very concerning. I What I do believe Ryan does is to create an opportunity to have an election where different fundamental perspectives on the role and size of government and it’s relative cost are actually discussed. I don’t care for Romney for a number of reasons but Ryan is a very bright and articulate spokesperson for his vision of government. He likely goes too far but then again I seriously doubt that our current level of government is sustainable either. Either way these are things we should be talking about not the bull shit sound bites and propaganda that currently fill our mailboxes and airwaves. I hope that Ryans entry encourages the real discussion and debate that should have occurred decades ago in earnest instead of the lip service and lies from both parties we have received.
August 11, 2012 at 3:02 pm
Eric Kirk
Romney is already distancing himself from the discussion, at least as represented by Ryan’s budget.
August 11, 2012 at 3:19 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
Anonymous – The b-s you speak of is just as prevalent, if not deeper doo doo, at the LOCAL LEVEL. No need to discuss the top side of politics without recognizing the down side of politics. People make their mistakes at the local level first, then filter it up to the top….that is how the top gets experience….from starting at the bottom. So, to say all that stuff without including local untrustworthy politicos is kinda a waste of breath. The locals hurt job opportunities more than the top-side duopolists. Basically, were all screwed, but only a few will admit it openly because the majority still lives in “everything is happy land” as if Happy Gilmore is our world leader. – HOJ
August 11, 2012 at 3:30 pm
mresquan
The neocons threw the election when they placed Romney as the candidate of choice for the Republican Party.This only ensures a wider margin of victory for Obama.
August 11, 2012 at 4:09 pm
Andrew Bird
Romney would pay a federal income tax rate of 0.82 percent under Paul Ryan’s budget plan, per the Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/mitt-romney-would-pay-082-percent-in-taxes-under-paul-ryans-plan/261027/
August 11, 2012 at 4:14 pm
gleetus
ryan looks like a drunk-bug eyes peekakneeze
August 11, 2012 at 6:00 pm
moviedad
They’re doubling-down. They’re going to steal this election just like the 2000 election. This is our new fascist corportocracy.
August 11, 2012 at 6:05 pm
suzy blah blah
no wait … seriously …
-he took the words right out of suzy’s mouth … is that plagiarism Eric?
August 11, 2012 at 7:37 pm
Black-Flag
You believe in elections?
rothlmao
August 11, 2012 at 10:08 pm
John Chiv
Eric,
I am posting this link because I think it is a well-balanced article. People have to get to know more about Paul Ryan other than the snippets media has provided so far. I think it’s too early to predict.
http://www.kansascity.com/2012/08/11/3758327/romneys-choice-of-paul-ryan-for.html
August 12, 2012 at 12:18 am
Matt
“I seriously doubt that our current level of government is sustainable either.”
I seriously doubt that our current level of military expenditures is sustainable either.
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/dec/05/alan-simpson/alan-simpson-says-us-military-spending-outpaces-to/
August 12, 2012 at 11:23 am
Anonymous
Who are you trying to BS? Barrack Hussien Obama, and his lap doggie Joe B., are crapping in their PJ’s. Ryan on the ticket has the O. adminstation, and Joel, wetting the bed agaain.
August 12, 2012 at 11:37 am
Eric Kirk
John – It’s a thoughtful article, but I suspect that Romney’s people will have a muzzle on Ryan soon enough. He’s going to try to look more moderate than he is, while playing some dog whistle politics for the base. It won’t be enough.
As to the notion that it will take the discussion away from focus on Romney’s business dealings in favor of a real discussion about the differing views on the economy and what to do about it, the author misses the point that Bain’s outsourcing and Romney’s benefit under the last decade’s tax cuts are central to the issue of why we’re where we’re at. We’ve been losing manufacturing jobs steadily since the 1990s, largely due to business practices which actually receive a tax incentive. Romney’s trumpeting of Bain as an American success story goes straight to the issue of policy – does Romney support policies which make it easy for Bain to outsource?
That issue isn’t going away because he picked a VP obsessed with the issue of deficits when the primary economic issue on everyone’s mind is unemployment.
August 12, 2012 at 12:17 pm
Eric Kirk
This just came in my email. Paul Ryan’s Congressional opponent is fundraising over this.
Hi, I’m Rob Zerban. Along with President Obama and Vice President Biden, I have the unique privilege of being the other candidate who gets to defeat Paul Ryan this year.
That’s because despite running for Vice President, Paul Ryan is still running for Congress in Wisconsin. And I’m his progressive opponent.
I’ve been preparing for over a year now. I have a great team and raised over a million dollars in grassroots donations — more than all of Ryan’s opponents in the last 10 years combined. But to finish the job, I need your help.
Can you donate $3 to my campaign so that we can keep Paul Ryan’s extremist views out of the White House AND Congress? Click here.
Paul Ryan supports ending Medicare. I support Medicare for All.
Paul Ryan supports lowering taxes on the rich. I want the rich to finally pay their fair share.
Paul Ryan thinks the way to create jobs is tax giveaways for Big Oil, Wall Street, and other big corporations. I’m a small businessman who fights for the little guy.
Paul Ryan is pro-life. I am pro-choice. Tell me when to stop…
The point is — Wisconsin voters finally have a competitive Democrat running against Paul Ryan. A bold progressive. And with Ryan now ignoring local voters, 2012 is the perfect moment to defeat him for good.
Please donate $3 to fuel my campaign and help me finish the job of defeating the right wing’s hero. Click here.
It’s been exciting to work with Progressive Change Campaign Committee members over the past year — standing up for the 99% and fighting back for Medicare. In Congress, I look forward to being your partner as we fight for progressive change.
Thanks for your support.
Rob Zerban,
August 12, 2012 at 12:47 pm
eddenson
The 538 site predicted that if Ryan were added to the ticket the result would be a .1 increase in Romney’s odds. Not enough. I think the Republican’s biggest problem will be to keep the election from being about Ryan instead of Romney. They picked him for right-wing cred, but right-wingism doesn’t play to the center where the few undecided independents are. Its a puzzle. He does seem to have brought in some right-wing money and Romney is $ ahead of Obama anyway so perhaps the plan is to simply blitz Obama as the election nears with so many ads that he can’t respond to them all.
August 12, 2012 at 2:55 pm
Eric Kirk
There will be a bounce in Romney’s approval ratings, who will forgive his defense of Romneycare in response to the Dem SuperPAC ad. But Obama’s going to call him on it in the debates, and will hammer on the point in ads come September. That really was one of the biggest problems he’s been facing. His “it works for Massachussets but not the rest of the country” schtick hasn’t been bought by the right either. What does he do about that? I really don’t know.
August 12, 2012 at 4:36 pm
Anonymous
“I seriously doubt that our current level of government is sustainable either.”
“I seriously doubt that our current level of military expenditures is sustainable either.”
Agreed, especially since last time I checked the military was part of the government too though sometimes they don’t think so, but what’s your point? I bet we agree that taxes on the wealthy need to be raised as well. Raising taxes won’t make government any smaller, necessarily reduce our debt, or anything else but it is long past time for Dems to realize we cannot afford what we are doing and for Reps to concede that taxes must be raised to dig ourselves out of the mess both parties have created. We need a real plan and hopefully Ryan being on the ticket with a flawed plan will encourage a discussion.
I know it’s right wing propaganda and not a wholly perfect analogy but ponder the following. It’s not without some merit:
* U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
* Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
* New debt: $1,650,000,000,000
* National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
* Recent budget cuts: $38,500,000,000
Let’s now remove 8 zeros, and pretend it’s a household budget:
* Annual family income: $21,700
* Money the family spent: $38,200
* New debt on the credit card: $16,500
* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
* Family decides to cut Budget by…. $385
August 12, 2012 at 9:11 pm
Capt. Edward John Smith
I seriously doubt our current level of carbon emissions is sustainable either.
Cut taxes? Drinks were cheap too, as we took on more water.
August 12, 2012 at 9:42 pm
Capt. Edward John Smith
Life-jackets got expensive, only the seriously well-to-do could afford them. Lifeboats were beyond reach of all but the 1% of the 1%. At least we had a place to go to be safe.
What’s Romney and Ryans take on man-made climate change?
August 13, 2012 at 12:33 am
spyrock
rather than cut social security which by the way, i paid into for 50 years. i think we should cut military spending by at least 25%. get out of afghanistan. get out of the middle east. just get the hell out,. and let those people decide their own fate. i probably could work until i die. but i’m still going to be pissed if the conservative republicans get rid of social secuity and steal my money that i’ve been putting in there for 50 years. and if they try to steal my health care. so what. health care these days isn’t saying much in america. just pay me back all that state medicare tax i have been paying for 50 years. just give me a visa card for 50k. and i will be ok with you.
August 13, 2012 at 12:50 am
spyrock
i sit and listen to these comments by people who have never worked in their lives. for the last 40 years, i have watched people like bain capital come into my work place, steal my benefits, steal my pension, steal my wage and make billions in the process. so you have mitt the billionaire. billionaire at the expense of the american working man,. me. and are you going to vote for him. really. you better rethink that pal.
August 13, 2012 at 7:14 am
Twigs
Either way the news media is happy because they can make it seem like it is a real race again and keep people watching the entertainment news cycles. Most people only know what the mainstream news cycles feed them.
Anon. I like the budget comeback however I lament encouraging anyone to think of the national budget like their personal household budget. That always leads to trouble and bad (conservative) conclusions if they generalize this into other situations. Household budgets rarely take into consideration super huge public investments likes dams, space programs, health care systems, and education which bring a return on that investment for decades, if not centuries to come. These are not measurable and completely predictable and therefore murky to build into a math table like what you have built here. It is also what gets left out of radical budgets like Ryan’s and it drives the dangerous push for balanced budget legislation across the country.
August 13, 2012 at 7:15 am
Ernie Branscomb
Good to see you over here Spy. We are all in agreement that this election will be about JOBS. Now all we need to see who is the better liar.
August 13, 2012 at 7:35 am
Anonymous
Twigs, I agree that the analogy has significant holes (and stated so) but the fact remains that budgets, household or national cannot stay in the red forever and there is a pretty good argument that ours has been there far too long. At some point we have to pay back what we borrow or at least stop borrowing more. I agree with your point about investing in infrastructure (except maybe dams) and social programs but those long term investments do not pay our short term obligations. When debt payments overshadow potiental income a catastrophic shutdown of services is inevitable. Check out Greece and before them Argentina and a host of others. Right now we have the chance to cut spending and raise taxes and avoid financial armageddon but at some point it will be too late. I have no idea when exactly that point comes but the flawed analogy legitamately drives home the point that it is not so far away, so does common sense.
Spy, I feel badly about your the way our representitives have frittered away your ss payments for fifty years but unfortunately that doesn’t change reality. It’s gone. Our kids will be paying your benifits not you. I just think we need to address the issue before it gets worse. bty, not to worry, I have no intention of voting for Romney. Thet doesn’t mean I’m happy with Obama either. I think both will give us more of the same but Obama will do it more humanely so I guess I lean his way. I’m still hoping that sometime soon we will have a real choice.
August 13, 2012 at 7:37 am
Eric Kirk
What’s Romney and Ryans take on man-made climate change?
That it’s a fraud perpetrated by what some right wingers call “the environmental litigation industry.”
August 13, 2012 at 7:39 am
Anonymous
Spy, On another note, I have had a productive, tax paying, job every day of my life since I was thirteen. I am guessing our ages to be similar so dare say I have probably paid in as much as you. It’s still gone.
August 13, 2012 at 8:05 am
Eric Kirk
Every time we’ve wracked up debt – every single time, we’ve reduced it by increasing revenues by expanding the economy. It has never been accomplished by reductions in spending in a recessionary cycle. There is not even one data point to suggest that it is wise policy. If you expand revenues, you can reduce the debt and then curb spending as the economy heats up, which is what Clinton did. But pulling money out of an economy like this one only aggravates the deficit problem. Over the past two years the private sector economy has expanded. What is keeping us in the hole, AND growing the deficit, are the draconian reductions in government jobs, which is having a reverse-stimulative effect on the rest of the economy, and keeping revenues down.
It’s really not that complicated, but the problem is a Congress which is willing to tear the economy down in order to defeat Obama. Every attempt to remedy the situation is blocked unless it can be “paid for” by cuts somewhere else. That means a zero net increase in money in the economy. Not all of the Republicans are that stupid, so there’s no rational explanation other than it is deliberate.
August 13, 2012 at 8:37 am
Bolithio
Is it Obama though? Yeh hes black and young and all that, but if was Gore would it be any different? Or any other party for that matter? Seems to me the problem is that the two parties are much more concerned with defeating each other than doing their jobs. Is it any wonder we have a apathetic electorate?
August 13, 2012 at 8:53 am
Anonymous
“Every time we’ve wracked up debt – every single time, we’ve reduced it by increasing revenues by expanding the economy.”
Actually not. What we have done is to make the debt more affordable by expanding the economy. It’s different. In essence what we have done is gotten a raise and then responded by by borrowing more. this has the effect of delaying and hiding the underlying issue, the debt. It doesn’t make it go away as we see whenever the economy contracts or fails to grow at a sufficient rate.
I agree that a recessionary period is not the time to reduce spending. Contracting spending now will only exaserbate the current recession. The problem is that we never find a good time. Clinton did not reduce real spending he only reallocated it. If it makes you feel better to blame the Republicans go for it, in fact they do tend to outspend Democrats, at least in the modern era, though not by much. I’m fine if a Democratic President gets credit for a real fix, actually I could give a rats ass if it was a Socialist or a facist. I fundimentally disagree that that it’s a party problem, I think it’s a fiscal problem and the sooner we leave politics out of it the sooner we can work on the real issue.
There is a real reason that every single mainstream economist and politician considers the debt a crisis, cuz it is. I would hope that at some point we could move past blame.
August 13, 2012 at 9:02 am
Eric Kirk
Clinton didn’t reduce spending, but he eliminated the deficit. It’s only a deficit when the spending exceeds revenues. We were actually left with a surplus.
It’s hard not to blame Republicans when the two biggest jumps in deficit spending occurred under Reagan and Bush, Jr. They’re perfectly willing to employ Keynesianism, but they don’t admit that’s what they’re doing.
I wouldn’t be against a law which requires that surplus money automatically does to balloon payments against debt absent an emergency. You actually want to pull money out of the economy in an inflationary cycle. That was the Keynesian principle actually.
August 13, 2012 at 9:18 am
Anonymous
“We were actually left with a surplus.”
Sorry, that’s just BS. What we did was to spend less of Spy Rocks Social Security deposits. That’s simply not a surplus, that’s just not counting all your expenses. I agree that Clinton did better than Bush’s and Regan but lets be realistic.
August 13, 2012 at 9:49 am
Bolithio
Its a party problem in that that our fundamental political system has only two parties who behave like children. The idea is that we have representation. If we had many parties, their would be less dominance of any one ideology. Thats a great concept. Instead, we have two oppositional forces who have created an ideological fight that must be maintained above all else.
August 13, 2012 at 10:20 am
Thorstein Veblen
“There is a real reason that every single mainstream economist and politician considers the debt a crisis, cuz it is.”
Mainstream economists and politicians got us into this mess. Why should we continue to listen to them now?
August 13, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Ernie'S Place
“Mainstream economists and politicians got us into this mess. Why should we continue to listen to them now?”
Mainstream economist and politcians also got very wealthy and re-elected. It pays for them to spout the political dogma. Fools that we are, we believe everything that we get from the mainstream media which is owned by the ultra-wealthy.
The young and the ignorant elect our politiians. How can we change that?
August 13, 2012 at 12:22 pm
Bolithio
Whats wrong with the young? If anything, the young are the ones who will have to deal with the outcomes of elections in the long run.
August 13, 2012 at 1:10 pm
Anonymous
“Mainstream economists and politicians got us into this mess. Why should we continue to listen to them now?”
“Mainstream economist and politcians also got very wealthy and re-elected. It pays for them to spout the political dogma. Fools that we are, we believe everything that we get from the mainstream media which is owned by the ultra-wealthy.”
Sounds like the same argument against global warming. I guess you found the only economist who believes you can borrow your way out of debt. Say hey to the Easter Bunny why don’t ya.
Sorry Ernie, I like and most often agree with you but if you don’t think a debt of $15 Trillion is too much I’m worried. I get the point about the media but common sense says that much debt is unaffordable.
August 13, 2012 at 2:27 pm
Olivia
Why wasn’t everyone screaming about the deficit as Bush created it? Two wars and tax cuts??? Where were you conservatives then? I never heard a word. How anyone can think we can have two wars and not pay for them is beyond me.
August 13, 2012 at 3:01 pm
Twigs
Anon… all good points with the exception that it tends to assume that income stays constant and debt doesn’t get paid down. A business can operate in the red for quite a while as long as it can sustain a cash flow for example. A household with less diversity of income and expense doesn’t have as much flexibility. I’m not arguing that there aren’t pet projects that the American budget couldn’t do without. A good example would be the huge portion of our GDP presently going to the military industrial complex for example. But the problem isn’t nearly what it is being politically made out to be. (And then I’d go with Eric’s position pretty much).
It is always prudent to keep an eye on what government is spending but it is foolish to treat the budget like a private checkbook would be treated and curtail sound investments for future good. But the Greek problem is not a good comparison for American issues.
We are not the Greeks. The Greek problem was largely compounded by a culture completely corrupted to avoid taxes which were set and a government without any willingness to check or balance that corruption (nor the smarts to do it) until it became inbred generation after generation. Coupled with bad accounting and reporting. Then too the size of the economy to population relationship isn’t a good example either.
The Austerity movement appears to be an developed nation world-wide movement to check the masses into a conservative ideology while preserving the status and position of wealth holders and investors. I doubt it is orchestrated but it certainly is a virus.
August 13, 2012 at 3:12 pm
Not A Native
IMO, Romney is just securing the very conservative Republican base, eliminating divisions created by a very hostile primary campaign.
Once he has his base firmly energized to vote, Romney will implement the Karl Rove strategy of appeasing to just enough right wing moderates to gain bare majorities in swing States. The outcome will hinge on Romney’s believeability when he trots out his version of “compassionate(common sense) conservatisism”.
August 13, 2012 at 3:16 pm
Anonymous
Since when is living within our means conservative? Jeeze, I supported Obama (now twice), protested the war (several of them), Clinton (admittedly only once, I was wrong once), even came out for Kerry. Campaigned against Prop 8, am pro choice and on and on. I am just concerned about spending exponentially more than we have. I guess around here that makes me a NRA toting redneck, with a white hood in the closet. Sometimes I think it would be easier to move.
August 13, 2012 at 3:19 pm
Anonymous
Twigs, btw, “….all good points with the exception that it tends to assume that income stays constant and debt doesn’t get paid down….”
That is exactly the point, it doesn’t get paid down.
August 13, 2012 at 8:08 pm
Ernie Branscomb
“….a debt of $15 Trillion is too much I’m worried. I get the point about the media but common sense says that much debt is unaffordable.”
I totally agree. Maybe I was being too facetious. However, when was the last time that you voted for president when you REALLY had a clear choice and a clear preference? Did Obama close Guantanamo Bay? He did create jobs, but lost more than he gained. Plus, the jobs that he created were not that great. Did he stop, or even slow down the trade deficit?
We can all see the problems down here at peon level, but we can’t do anything about it. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have any more faith that Romney will do any better. We get Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum and the media keeps us arguing with each other about who is the best when neither are, as we take our eyes off the real issues, which is trade deficit and jobs
.
The media depends upon the naivety of youth and the people that really don’t give a rats-ass, but vote any way. I’m not saying that young people are dumb, but I don’t think that they have near the knowledge of the average people with, say, Eric Kirks experience. Yet, even Eric thinks that there is some kind of a Messiah in Obama. I’m sick to death about the state of the country.
We need to pull back and save our own economy. We have the talent and the resources There is no reason that we should get sucked into the vortex of “World Economy”. We can’t really help save the world from disaster if we become part of the crisis. There is an old saying in life saving: “You can’t help anybody if you become part of the problem, you have to take care of yourself first”. I don’t see why that wouldn’t apply on an international level.
The first thing that we need is fair world trade laws. NOW!
August 13, 2012 at 8:25 pm
Olivia
It takes longer than 3 years to fix the problems created by the Bush administration. Tax cuts, two wars we didn’t pay for, deregulation, bailing out banks. Economists said, when the stimulus was passed, that it wasn’t big enough but Obama couldn’t get the votes to do it right. The republicans & conservative democrats have done as much as possible to keep Obama from succeeding. He’s on the right track; it’s going to take more time. We need people to start caring about others & to stop demonizing the poor & disadvantaged. We need higher taxes and more stimulus.
August 13, 2012 at 8:39 pm
Albert Einstein
Sorry Ernie, trade deficit and jobs are the superficial issues. What good are they if we bake ourselves into oblivion? Or microwave ourselves with Fukishima-like fallout? Climate change, population, and how we divvy up the goods that remain available to us, those are the issues to my mind.
Regards, Al
August 13, 2012 at 10:05 pm
spyrock
i went to watch the campaign movie tonight with will ferrel. it’s probably not suitable for your kids or wife and many of the skits are far fetched until you think about it for awhile. then you start remembering how many of these things have happened in real life. the numerous times politicians have been caught with their pants down. but the main plot of giving up small town america for imported chinese employee corporate greed is something i have been telling all the mexican nationals where i work for the last 20 years. i didn’t like that kickin it soccer movie the first time i saw it. it grows on you. this movie leaves a bad taste in your mouth. sort of like castor oil. but its good to see a dose of reality once in awhile. i’m not sure if this years election is worth my attention. it doesn’t seem to matter who wins. the people with money are in control. the olympics was good. especially the grand finale. i’ve got a house to fix that a christian pastor left in a mess to avoid paying the back rent and all the damage he did. he always used to tell me god bless you.when ever i came around. so i got blessed real good. so no matter who wins the election, god owes me and i’m ok with it.
August 14, 2012 at 6:05 am
Twigs
Annon… if you have a crystal ball I’d like one too please. During the Clinton administration the national debt went bye-bye. Before that time deficits hawks also were saying it would never be paid down. Although granted the Republicans took care of the surplus, along with Clinton’s deregulation on banks, and divided it up into the hands of their industry and personal cronies during the Bush years so once again the mantra of too much debt can dictate fear and policy.
My fear is the building of the greatest most powerful war machine in the world. I voted for Obama, I like Obama’s domestic policies, and I will vote for him again. But if we, the citizens, do not check the war powers still being created and utilized in this country we will all be screwed. For those who want to decry the deficit so ferociously then let’s see them start to dismantle the massive war (fear, killing) machine we’ve created with our abundance.
Imagine putting that machine once again into the hands of a GOP puppet at the helm.
August 14, 2012 at 7:39 am
tra
Twigs,
Just to clarify: The annual deficit (the amount of new debt added to the national debt each year) was eliminated during Clinton’s presidency, and there was a modest annual “surplus,” but this barely made a dent in the overall accumulated national debt, which most certainly did not go “bye-bye.”
August 14, 2012 at 9:33 am
Jane
Fatcheck.org
…there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.
August 14, 2012 at 9:35 am
Jane
You guys are going after apples and oranges in the finance world. You don’t pay off certain debt because it is foolish to do so and more costly to do so.
August 14, 2012 at 9:36 am
Jane
… so… therefore… and by the way… and …. oh yeah… there is a distinct difference. “The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt”
August 14, 2012 at 9:38 am
Jane
The deficit goes away but debt doesn’t and the convo was about the deficit Jim. (Sorry about the multiple posts… multi-tasking).
August 15, 2012 at 5:54 am
Plain Jane
I think their plan is pull their platform as far to the right as possible, steal the election by disenfranchising voters with discriminatory ID requirements, voter caging, fraudulent voter roll purges and then declare a mandate for their agenda. Ohio’s latest tactic is so outrageous it must be unconstitutional.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/opinion/overt-discrimination-in-ohio.html?_r=1&hp
August 15, 2012 at 6:19 am
Twigs
Sadly, though JP being unconstitutional won’t matter for a number of years, if true. By the time someone gets around to making these vote robbing Jim Crow types accountable all will be said and done. There will not be the political courage to do anything. Our regulators and politicians have become a mix of sheep and sharks it sometimes seems.
And thank you Jane.
August 15, 2012 at 8:23 am
Flora Prose
Morford dishes it: “It has proven almost impossible for most Americans to muster interest in this numbly rich, exceedingly bland caricature of a candidate, a man who is almost completely devoid of deep ideas or astute observation, who stands for nothing and says nothing you can ever remember, whose last ten speeches can be rolled into a fist-sized ball of palliative mush, hurled against a wall and then observed to ooze slowly to the floor, ending in a moist, displeasing plop. Fun!”
MRS= Mitt Revulsion Syndrome
August 15, 2012 at 8:16 pm
bolithio
You guys are way too negative. Cheer up!
August 16, 2012 at 9:57 am
Mitch
The fundamental problem is neither the debt nor the deficit. The fundamental problem is that we have stopped rewarding the creation of value, because economics is based on foolish assumptions that do not reflect reality. I think most economists understand that, but they continue to look for their car keys under the streetlights.
When you invest in schools and bridges, it’s ok to go into debt if you have to, because you have created value for your society. When you invest in the military and TSA, you have burned your money, regardless of whether economists say you’ve boosted your GDP and lowered your “unemployment.” Maybe it was necessary, but whether it was necessary or not, you still burned your money. When you invest in extractive industries today, you are not only burning the money but, to mix metaphors, digging your children into a deeper hole from which it will be impossible to climb out.
Bain created no value for society, it was just an expert at creating transactions that moved money from places it was needed to Bain’s investors. That’s why it’s so creepy that the Bain guy is running for President. The banksters have learned to make money for themselves without adding value to society. It has brought them the finest seats on the Titanic.
The GDP is not a measure of anything useful. The stock market is not a measure of anything useful. And yet we will continue to destroy ourselves in order to jiggle numbers so they will look better within our fantasies.
I’ve found a book that does a decent job of explaining all this, though it’s short on solutions: Prosperity without Growth, by Tim Jackson. I’d be even more enthusiastic about it if I believed any of his (extremely sensible) suggestions had a snowball’s chance in hell of being acted upon.
August 16, 2012 at 10:08 am
Jane
Great post Mitch. I think though the Bain type of value transactions do add value. They add status and political power to the wealth holders. Used to be ya had to buy stuff no one else could afford like velvet, spices, sugar, and stocks, a Mercedes or something to mark status and difference from the rest of the idiots. Status because we common peeps all admire and watch the rich and famous waiting our turns until we get old enough to know better. Without teeth it is hard to be powerful and convincing and get the young pups to turn off the TV.
August 16, 2012 at 10:36 am
Mitch
Thanks, Jane. Sure, the Bain transactions were valuable for the Bain people. And the investments we make in the military lower the price we need to pay for oil. But neither of those things add to the net pool of “worthwhile things” available to humanity — they make a few people much better off and most people worse off. On balance, the world becomes poorer.
One assumption of economics is that economic transactions are always beneficial, because participants wouldn’t engage in the transaction otherwise. That’s just so completely blind to reality it’s mind-boggling.
When resources could still be treated as essentially infinite, there was at least a fig-leaf to suggest that economic transactions added value for society. But now that many transactions have been revealed as either the present robbing from the future, or of the powerful stealing from the less powerful, or of those with information cheating those without, to claim that measuring an increase in economic activity means you’ve measured an increase in value is just silly.
Take half of your “workforce” and move it from child raising into the economy, and somehow you’ve doubled GDP. How has this generation of kids been “helped” by the fact that households now need two wage earners to hope for the middle class, when only two generations ago a single wage earner was more than enough to bring the average family into the middle class? Was a woman’s contribution to her own household of no value until it got turned into “nanny” services? (None of this is to object in the slightest to women’s access to well paid employment; but it’s just amazing how we ignore the fact that each family now needs two people working outside the home to enter the “middle class,” and pay attention instead to the exciting increase in GDP. We are measuring fantasies and ignoring the realities in front of our eyes.)
August 17, 2012 at 7:34 am
Anonymous
You people don’t really have a clue ! Think back about all the promises BHO made ! Basically all BS, or more acurately lies !
BHO’s employment and life experience prior to being elected was nothing that would quallify him for runnnig a medium sized company.
People bought into the hope and change slogan. But that’s all it was, a slogan.
August 17, 2012 at 10:36 am
Jane
Government isn’t a company. Government isn’t a business. It is a service.
Get a clue. Any promise made by any politician without full information would be “iffy”. I’d be much more frightened by a politician who actually made specific promises kept regardless of circumstance. Bush Junior for example. Or Paul Ryan. It is why ideology and background voting history is so important. Paul Ryan is a McDonald’s boy and has little business background and a paltry education. He does have a wife who is a tax attorney.
August 17, 2012 at 10:48 am
Jane
You don’t think we’ve changed? Lordy, we’ve changed. What we didn’t change was Congress. We sent in a whole load of right wing nut-clones to rescue this nation from having to tax the rich to pay for bandages for the poor, to keep the poor fighting the wars, and digging the ditches for sewer pipes for McMansions. Obama led a change and Congress undermined every domestic policy he offered and put a blindfold on when it came to war and the military and tried to co-opt those successes for their own. We are now shooting people down with drones. Drones are being used by our police. We have spy cams being used in major public areas to track all citizens not just criminals who have a warrant. We have little transparency and no political discussion on privacy or talk about the fascist state still building. Congress is essentially a monkey and Obama’s job is to serve the monkey or change its habits. That doesn’t happen without our votes. See no evil, hear no evil, speak nothing of importance, but collect money for breathing, and do everything possible to make sure this President can do nothing to change their wealthy status quo. That is the monkey we put on the President’s back.
I’ve got my own gripes about Obama’s war crap but seriously don’t spin more wool over peep’s eyeballs. The electorate is blind and dumb enough as it is without help.
August 17, 2012 at 2:36 pm
Mitch
Anonymous 7:34,
Here’s the Washington Post discussing Obama’s campaign promises. This dates back to 2010, just as the new Congress was settling in…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/obamas-promises/
I’m curious why you think becoming editor and president of the Harvard Law Review, then teaching Constitutional law at the University of Chicago for twelve years is less of a qualification for government than being a vulture capitalist. It seems pretty safe to say that if the President had wanted to be on any corporate boards after editing the HLR and graduating from Harvard Law School magna cum laude, he would have been welcome.
Oh yeah, he was also a state Senator for seven years and has served on the boards of several foundations.
We can ignore the fact that the President started his climb from zero, while Mr. Romney was the son of a millionaire and state Governor.
August 17, 2012 at 3:53 pm
Anonymous
Bin Laden is Dead. General Moters is alive.
August 19, 2012 at 9:01 am
Albert Einstein
Doesn’t obama have 4 years executive experience now?
Add to the above; my health insurance company can’t kick me off my coverage now that I am sick and wanting them to pay out some benefits. Wait till you get sick and see how important that becomes to you. I’ll vote for obama for that alone.
August 25, 2012 at 1:46 pm
Anonymous
I’m not sure if I’d call it “executive experience” ……. maybe some JV on the job training !?
Albert you need new last name …
Saw the movie Obama 2016 ! very informative.