David Axelrod's Comments Today on FOX News

[Democratic Hawk]

Certainly the middle class has not grown during the Obama administration. So presumably he is referring to the shrinking middle class and increased poverty generated since January 2009.

Now, if only Obama had been bequeathed the Clinton legacy of prosperity, low unemployment and solvent government ... Rome was not built in a day

Unemployment. 4.2% as of January 2001; 5.4% as of November, 2004. Bush re-elected by an increased margin in the PV and EV

Unemployment. 7.5% as of January 1981; 7.2% as of November, 1984. Reagan re-elected by landslide margins in both the PV and EV

And as we know, deficits were the road out of the 'Monetarist' and 2001 recessions

A bit of perspective wouldn't go a miss. Obama, economically, has had to face challenges no president since FDR has had to face. And the counter-cyclical stimulus at $800bn was modest, at least, compared to $3 trillion of supply-side tax cuts from Bush 43. Wasn't the unemployment low point 4.6% with Bush 43? If so, then higher as of January 2001

[Democratic Hawk]

Try since September 2008, remembering that Obama took office mid-meltdown, assuming the American people are capable of long-term memory any more (not a safe assumption, I know).

One wonders then why the electorate would vote to continue on the road taken from September 2008 to November 2012.

One wonders then why the electorate would vote to continue the road taking from January 2001 to November 2004 for that matter?

Presumably they supported paying lower tax and/or killing jihadist arabs in the middle east.

And there's a thing. Ever occurred to you that had taxation been left at Clinton rates that the US would have, fiscally, been much better prepared to ride out the 'Crash of 2008' and the Great Recession? I mean come on if the best the US economy can yield in terms of jobs following trillions of $ in tax cuts is the fewest of any president this side of Herbert Hoover, then WOW, just WOW

Of course, I'd say the challenges facing developed economies this day and age are immense given that capitalism is increasingly global, which is why my priority would be to reduce business taxation

[Democratic Hawk]

Setting aside the dubious hindsight/foresight problems with this as of 2004, why on earth would whatever idea you seem to be positing override one's desire to pay lower tax?

But why cut taxes, at a time, when the federal government is living within its means? It makes no sense to me, certainly not with a Republican president who was committed to expanding it

Indeed, its Bush 43 policies and the economic downturns which continue to drive the deficit, adding to the gross federal debt. Obama's counter-cyclical measure - the ARRA - cost a conservative $800bn by comparison, with the increase in the federal debt post-2009 more the consequence of the Great Recession than his response to it. And "austerity" was no road out of that one

FTR, I've never cast a vote on the promise of tax cuts in my life. Its not something that can be bought

[Democratic Hawk]

I wonder how many more jobs would have been created had Harry Reid not forced a 'sunset provision' into the tax cuts.  Certainly the last few years would have seen higher job growth without the tax bomb hanging overhead.   

Alternatively, of course had the GOP not gained control of the House or made considerable gains in the Senate, in the 2010, the recovery may have been more robust with unemployment more rapidly trending downwards - in other words, their worst nightmare

Democrats, in the post-war era, have, generally, presided over more robust economic growth; job creation and a more equitable rise in prosperity across all five income quintiles. Not to mention every Democrat from Truman thru' to Clinton presiding over reduction in the gross federal debt as % of GDP

There you have it. Good reasons as any for why I identify with the Democratic Party

The lack of certainty is a tax.
To tax is to destroy.
Hence, Obama's rhetoric and tax policy positions have been destructive.     

Yea, Bill Clinton destroyed the US economy when he modestly raised taxes to confront the deficit and increasing public debt, as a % of GDP, he inherited from Reagan and Bush 41

Even the Reaganite David Stockman is, witheringly, critical of the GOP's anti-tax jihadism

[Democratic Hawk]

Setting aside the dubious hindsight/foresight problems with this as of 2004, why on earth would whatever idea you seem to be positing override one's desire to pay lower tax?

But why cut taxes, at a time, when the federal government is living within its means? It makes no sense to me, certainly not with a Republican president who was committed to expanding it

Indeed, its Bush 43 policies and the economic downturns which continue to drive the deficit, adding to the gross federal debt. Obama's counter-cyclical measure - the ARRA - cost a conservative $800bn by comparison, with the increase in the federal debt post-2009 more the consequence of the Great Recession than his response to it. And "austerity" was no road out of that one

FTR, I've never cast a vote on the promise of tax cuts in my life. Its not something that can be bought

The Medicaid and Medicare programs were passed when the government was living within its means and directly caused the government to no longer live within its means. Both have added hundreds of billions of dollars of deficit spending over the past 50 years. The phenomenon suggested here is certainly not new to American politics.

All that tells me is that the federal government needed to continue to live within its means, it was only with Reagan that the debt to GDP ratio started to explode - as if I didn't know why - but, anyway, all you need to do is ensure that revenues are able to meet existing and future requirements, which should, of course, ultimately, give people the choice of 1) contributing more in during the work cycle or 2) be willing to work longer

There is no problem that cannot be resolved if there is the political will. Most major developed economies seem to be running high public debt to GDP ratios. Try not to worry about it . But, ultimately, there needs to be new global post-Hayekian consensus. Neoliberalism seems as dated as revolutionary socialism

[Democratic Hawk]

Fact is, Romney is for repeating policies that did not work and would only turn the economy backward, it's not a secret he's for more of the same type of tax cuts that have already caused problems. I don't think anyone can seriously believe that he was endorsing Romney.

I take as it Axelrod meaning that congressional GOP is the current problem and a move in the right direction would require them lot being out the door. In any other developed economy, save possibly Japan, had any party in government mad a ruddy arse of things like they did, there would have been no easy road back. Republicans seem to be held to an appallingly low standard, which will never make for good governance if they think they can get a pass like they did in 2004 . A few thousand net jobs in the public sector between 2001-2004

If only a Democrat had been dealt the Clinton legacy of prosperity, low unemployment and solvent government ... Bush 43 could have built on that. No such legacy bequeathed Barack Obama

Unemployment was never lower under George W Bush than where it stood as of January 2001