Is Obama finished?

[President Mitt]

The amount of spending on the military is not justifiable by external threats, and it is burning through out pockets. Make major cuts everywhere, but do not leave Military spending unscathed by the red pen.

     We spend more on our military than the next fifty countries combined. That strikes me as more than a little off. I mean, it's not like we're likely to suffer an invasion en masse anytime soon.

Exactly. And making spending cuts would not necessarily hurt the economy as poundingtherock has said. Military spending after the Korean War declined nearly 70% and the 50's were a relatively prosperous decade.

[pbrower2a]

"This would negate the positive effects of this."

I want to see non-military government spending reduced dramatically.  Fund our troops and wars and nothing but the bare minimum for anything else is essentially my motto. Palin would probably adopt that mindset as well.  I don't think she's losing too much sleep over the people who lack healthcare in this country.  Neither am I.

Someone without a conscience might be kept awake at night if a neighbor separated only by a thin wall is playing Hector Berlioz' Requiemon a very good stereo, or has a gout attack.

I think the assumption that Obama's approval ratings will improve once the economy improves is wrong because the people making this argument are already claiming that the economy is improving right now just as Obama's approval has continued to drop to a record-low for a President in his first year in office.

The economy has certainly scared a lot of people. If Presidents ordinarily see their popularity decrease while the economy falters, then why would we not expect the opposite?

Record low? That's because America was so polarized in November 2008, and he hasn't magically put an end to the polarization between regions, Left and Right, and the like. He didn't have much to lose, and his opponents have created much fear in him.

Profits return, and inventories shrink, before peopole get their jobs back. 

  So if we accept the argument that the economy is improving right now, then you would have to accept the fact that the economy is not what is driving Obama's approval rating down.

Explanation: as a rule, investors buy up underpriced securities after a panic before businesses start investing anew in plant and equipment -- which does the job creation in Big Business. Jobless claims are finally down.

[Poundingtherock]

The military does leave people dead....terrorists and our enemies.

So Pbroker, since you are arguing that the economy has improved towards the end of this year, are you conceding that the economy is not what is driving Obama's approval down?

A stable economy might not be what Obama wants.  After all, socially conservative Hispanics may just vote on social issues, giving Republicans 40% of the Hispanic vote.

White people won't vote for Obama anyway given that he's under 40% in approval with whites in many polls.

[Bo]

No. He will get reelected in three years.

[OC]

Obama was put in to create jobs.  The other issues are a back drop. The jobs situation has to be below 8% to have any chance of him getting reelected. If not, the Ross Perot independents that voted for Obama last time around will be looking for an alternative.

[pbrower2a]

The military does leave people dead....terrorists and our enemies.

Not to mention the soldiers sacrificed as cannon fodder and the civilian "collateral damage".

So Pbroker, since you are arguing that the economy has improved towards the end of this year, are you conceding that the economy is not what is driving Obama's approval down?

First, I don't like being called "Pbroker". Someone else called me that on another Forum, and that person was a real piece of work -- a Jew-baiting, Holocaust-denying slimeball who figured me out as part of ZOG (the so-called "Zionist Occupation Government"). I'm not even Jewish!

People voted for Obama as a repudiation of George W. Bush and policies that have led only to calamity. What did Dubya ever do for you? Lie to start a war for control of other countries' oilfields and then bungle it badly? Delegate power to the likes of Dick Cheney and Karl Rove that the President has no authority to assume even for himself?  Promote a corrupt speculative boom that went bust? Give resource-grabbers whatever they want?  Pander to traffickers in discreditable superstitions?

A stable economy might not be what Obama wants.  After all, socially conservative Hispanics may just vote on social issues, giving Republicans 40% of the Hispanic vote.

How would you know? Hispanics are conservative on law and order, but other than that? They have no use for the anti-intellectualism so pervasive in the white Protestant Right.  They have been burned badly by the subprime lending scams that allowed many of them to buy houses that they could never afford -- houses that have often gone into repossession. Mexican-Americans tend to make huge sacrifices to get a single-family home, and this time they got burned badly. They are not going to forgive the GOP until it changes drastically. That's why Nevada went for Obama by about a 12% margin to the surprise of many.

The best way to economic stability is to eliminate corruption. The rest takes care of itself.  

White people won't vote for Obama anyway given that he's under 40% in approval with whites in many polls.

Mostly where Obama was very unpopular in 2008 -- the South and some parts of the Intermountain West. Nobody pretends that our economic system has yet undone the hardships that eight years of reactionary government created -- hardships imposed through ticking time-bombs that exploded in 2007 and 2008.

Much must change before we recover the sort of prosperity that we knew in the 1990s. We can't restore the corrupt bubble economy that we knew with Dubya as President. We Americans are going to have to create prosperity the old-fashioned way -- through long-term, low-yield investments that we can't run away from if they start to go sour.  Anything else creates at most the illusion of prosperity or prosperity only for a few at the expense of everyone else.  The stock market is well advanced from where it was in February, but it has yet to recover what it lost in the Panic of 2008.

Economic recoveries take time.  This one won't depend upon cronyism, tax cuts targeted at the super-rich, and quick-buck raids on resources. It will make things better for people who missed out on the illusory prosperity of the GWB era. Recoveries are much slower as a rule than panics. Such is the norm in American economic history.   

[ShadowOfTheWave]

I have to agree that Hispanics are not extremely socially conservative. There is no way the 'abortion only' vote is as high with Latinos as it is among whites. And I don't know if they would buy into the marriage backlash that spread among religious moderates four years ago.

The most important thing to understand among the overall white vote is, that the south drags down the Democratic numbers heavily. Outside the region, Obama did at least four points better among whites. And outside the popular vote he won white women.

[pbrower2a]

Obama was put in to create jobs.  The other issues are a back drop. The jobs situation has to be below 8% to have any chance of him getting reelected. If not, the Ross Perot independents that voted for Obama last time around will be looking for an alternative.

Some places will get below 8% unemployment and not vote for Obama; some will not get below 8% unemployment yet vote for Obama. We need remember that eighteen states and DC haven't voted for any GOP nominee since at least 1988, and three states which have voted only once for a GOP nominee since 1988, which suggests that unless Obama has a corrupt or inept Presidency he will have practically 260 electoral votes after achieving little.  That leaves little wiggle room for the GOP. A second crash? A major scandal? Sure -- in such cases, Obama loses. It's hard to see how we can have another crash during a slow, steady recovery that depends upon work and investment instead of upon smoke and mirrors. Speculative booms almost invariably end in panics.

Obama won't create jobs; he has yet to do so. He has established a more job-friendly environment. He's gone after corruption and overseas tax shelters that don't create jobs but instead drain capital. He can, like Ronald Reagan, ride a recovery.  

The Religious Right, the most reliable conduit for GOP voters, is drying up as a source of votes. Much of the fear of Obama "He's a secret Muslim; he will take your guns away" will prove hollow.

[Poundingtherock]

Pbrower,

Where's your math coming from regarding the 260 electoral college votes?

I recall that the census in 2010 will lead to a net of +10 in terms of electoral college votes for red states last election.

[Bo]

Pbrower,

Where's your math coming from regarding the 260 electoral college votes?

I recall that the census in 2010 will lead to a net of +10 in terms of electoral college votes for red states last election.

I'm guessing he means the total EVs of all the states that Obama won by at least 10% in 2008 following the 2010 Census.

[OC]

The job of the federal gov't is to help private business to invest again and so far, with the stimulus package which some can be argued as being too small was able to keep jobs but failed to create new jobs from the jobs that were eliminated do to the recession.

The Dems are going to keep their base states, but IA, NM, and OH are shaky..

[Poundingtherock]

I usually won't ever cite the NY Times/CBS News poll because it is a joke (see its 2009 NJ governor polling) but when it shows a result favorable to conservatives, that makes my argument even stronger.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/2003/08/majority-of-hispanics-pro-life.html

"According to a July 13-27 New York Times/CBS poll (as reported on LifeNews.com), 44 percent of Hispanics now say abortion should not be permitted, while 33 percent say it should be permitted with strict limits."

[N.i.K.]

Of course not. Obama is even likely to be re-elected at this time, with all the talk of independent right wing candidates.

[pbrower2a]

I usually won't ever cite the NY Times/CBS News poll because it is a joke (see its 2009 NJ governor polling) but when it shows a result favorable to conservatives, that makes my argument even stronger.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/2003/08/majority-of-hispanics-pro-life.html

"According to a July 13-27 New York Times/CBS poll (as reported on LifeNews.com), 44 percent of Hispanics now say abortion should not be permitted, while 33 percent say it should be permitted with strict limits."

Sunday, August 10, 2003
Majority of Hispanics Pro-Life
A new poll is showing that a majority of Hispanics, now the nation's largest minority, are pro-life.

According to a July 13-27 New York Times/CBS poll (as reported on LifeNews.com), 44 percent of Hispanics now say abortion should not be permitted, while 33 percent say it should be permitted with strict limits.

The same article says a May Latino Opinion poll of Hispanics found that "Seventy-five percent took one of three pro-life positions opposing all or almost all abortions. They said abortion should either never be legal (27%), legal only when the life of the mother is in danger (25%), or only in cases of rape or incest or when the mother's life is in danger (23%)."

You really need to get new glasses if you are going to use a poll from 2003 -- six years ago. That was when George W. Bush was in his first  term as President. The GOP was then going strong

I found a "404" message when I clicked on the link to "Lifenews.com", so I could not find out what the organization was. I can only imagine.

[The Duke]

"This would negate the positive effects of this."

I want to see non-military government spending reduced dramatically. 

And what about military spending?

Um, where are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest of the national debt?  Those are huge budget items and you've just decided not to include them becaue it was inconvenient to your ideologically driven argument?

[Senator Libertas]

"This would negate the positive effects of this."

I want to see non-military government spending reduced dramatically. 

And what about military spending?

Um, where are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest of the national debt?  Those are huge budget items and you've just decided not to include them becaue it was inconvenient to your ideologically driven argument?

Uh, no, that's a pie chart of the federal discretionary budget.

[Scam of God]

"This would negate the positive effects of this."

I want to see non-military government spending reduced dramatically. 

And what about military spending?

Um, where are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest of the national debt?  Those are huge budget items and you've just decided not to include them becaue it was inconvenient to your ideologically driven argument?

Behold, the typical conservative: quite fond of Big Government, as long as the spending is on things he agrees with.

[J. J.]

It is too early, but Obama looks like he is running below the first term numbers of every president since Nixon.

That isn't a good sign.

The better news is that Reagan was the second lowest.

[The Duke]

"This would negate the positive effects of this."

I want to see non-military government spending reduced dramatically. 

And what about military spending?

Um, where are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest of the national debt?  Those are huge budget items and you've just decided not to include them becaue it was inconvenient to your ideologically driven argument?

Behold, the typical conservative: quite fond of Big Government, as long as the spending is on things he agrees with.

Was this supposed to be a burn?

Are you saying I'm in favor of national defense?  Guilty as charged.

Or are you saying I am in favor of Medicare and Social Security?  Well, I am guilty of that as well.

My point, however, was that the graph he put up excludes some of the largest budget items to make it appear that national defense is a larger share of the federal budget than it actually is.

[Senator Libertas]

"This would negate the positive effects of this."

I want to see non-military government spending reduced dramatically. 

And what about military spending?

Um, where are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest of the national debt?  Those are huge budget items and you've just decided not to include them becaue it was inconvenient to your ideologically driven argument?

Behold, the typical conservative: quite fond of Big Government, as long as the spending is on things he agrees with.

Was this supposed to be a burn?

Are you saying I'm in favor of national defense?  Guilty as charged.

Or are you saying I am in favor of Medicare and Social Security?  Well, I am guilty of that as well.

My point, however, was that the graph he put up excludes some of the largest budget items to make it appear that national defense is a larger share of the federal budget than it actually is.

Which was a lie of yours that was already addressed.

[So the Heroes Fall]

It is too early, but Obama looks like he is running below the first term numbers of every president since Nixon.

That isn't a good sign.

The better news is that Reagan was the second lowest.

It's not really worth replying since no one takes you seriously anyway, but this statement is blatantly false:



He is at worse tied with Reagan and clearly above Clinton.

[The Duke]

Behold, the typical conservative: quite fond of Big Government, as long as the spending is on things he agrees with.

Was this supposed to be a burn?

Are you saying I'm in favor of national defense?  Guilty as charged.

Or are you saying I am in favor of Medicare and Social Security?  Well, I am guilty of that as well.

My point, however, was that the graph he put up excludes some of the largest budget items to make it appear that national defense is a larger share of the federal budget than it actually is.

Which was a lie of yours that was already addressed.

Where is the lie?  I said, and these are my exact words, that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the national debt are budget items that are not included in the graph.

You can reply that your graph only represents discretioanry items, but it doesn't change the point.  You like those non-discretinary items, so you didn't include them in the graph so as to make the things you don't like seem to be more significant than they are.  Defense is the bulk of discretionary spending, so if you limit your graph to discretionary spending, you are able to create a false impression.

Saying that a budget item is non-discretionary is no defense at all.  Mandatory spending is 62% of the Federal budget.  You have excluded nearly 2/3rds of all spending and your response is effectively that this spending doesn't count!

On your graph, defense is a majority of spending, but when you include all spending, we see that it is only about 1/5th of the budget.



And remember, no one on your side of this acknowledged that your graph only represents discretionary spending until my post forced you to admit you were fudging the facts.  Your post did not say anything about discretionary spending.  Your graph was not labeled as such.  You tried to pull a fast one and you got caught.

[J. J.]

It is too early, but Obama looks like he is running below the first term numbers of every president since Nixon.

That isn't a good sign.

The better news is that Reagan was the second lowest.

It's not really worth replying since no one takes you seriously anyway, but this statement is blatantly false:



He is at worse tied with Reagan and clearly above Clinton.

Actually, I used the November/December numbers for each President's first year of a first term from Gallup linked a few posts ago.  Obviously, I didn't include Ford or Johnson, who didn't win an election.  http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/presidential-approval-tracker.htm.  Double checking, Reagan tied Obama in December, but Clinton was several points higher (and he had an earlier dramatic drop).

It is too early to tell, but the numbers are not great.  Incidentally, both Clinton and Reagan had dramatic drops in the second year and both recovered.

[Scam of God]

"This would negate the positive effects of this."

I want to see non-military government spending reduced dramatically.  

And what about military spending?

Um, where are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest of the national debt?  Those are huge budget items and you've just decided not to include them becaue it was inconvenient to your ideologically driven argument?

Behold, the typical conservative: quite fond of Big Government, as long as the spending is on things he agrees with.

Was this supposed to be a burn?

Are you saying I'm in favor of national defense?  Guilty as charged.

Or are you saying I am in favor of Medicare and Social Security?  Well, I am guilty of that as well.

My point, however, was that the graph he put up excludes some of the largest budget items to make it appear that national defense is a larger share of the federal budget than it actually is.

Shut your hole. I'm tired of your posturing; I'm tired of you slick conservative ingrates lying through your wormy little teeth every time a Democrat is in the Presidency about how much you'll shrink the government. Not once since that moronic charlatan Reagan assumed the throne have you been honest, as an ideological wing prone to groupthink, with the American people.

But your days are numbered, my friend. Indeed, we can't fund any liberal social programs - which means we sure as Hell can't fund your favorite subsidies, like defense or the prison-industrial complex. I guarantee it. Conservatism is dead. I hope I get to see your head paraded on a pike with it.

[The Duke]

But your days are numbered, my friend. Indeed, we can't fund any liberal social programs - which means we sure as Hell can't fund your favorite subsidies, like defense or the prison-industrial complex. I guarantee it. Conservatism is dead. I hope I get to see your head paraded on a pike with it.

I'm thinking of making your psychotic rant into my new sig.  I especially like the part where you wish for my violent death.