Talk Elections

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFUYhN3ikxI&feature=youtu.be

In a nutshell, he said we have a choice in this election between an economy that produces a growing middle class and gives people a chance to get ahead OR an economy that continues down the road we're currently on.

Listen to what he says carefully, and tell me what you think. Obviously it's not an endorsement of Romney, but if I just saw the text and not who said it, it almost sounds like he was endorsing Romney.

For some, a fart aired on FOX News would be a sound endorsement for Romney.

What's shown here that I think is interesting is the fact that in this election we have a choice between two campaigns that other than a few clearly partisan canards that have been around for a long time use some oddly similar rhetoric to characterize themselves and each other.

Thank you for providing an intelligent comment for this discussion.

The rhetoric is pretty similar - what surprised me here was Axelrod suggesting the road we're currently on is not a good one, which I found contrary to Obama's talking points that the economy is improving and we're on the road to recovery. Romney, on the other hand, has argued that the economy is not headed in the right direction. That's the biggest difference between the two in my opinion, which is why I think how the economy turns out from now until November will pretty much decide the election,

Axelrod was obviously referring to the road of neo-liberalism we've been on since 1980.

But then there is no good choice.

I think the Romney campaign's pattern of distortions is going to bite them.  I know the finer points of reality get lost on voters.  But there's only so much you can do this one and their first anti-Obama ad before people stop taking you seriously.

Did you miss 2004 and 1988? That's the type of game Team Obama is going to need to beat Republicans at in order to win. Good luck with that.

It sounds like an anachronism.....it sounds like it was taken from 2008.

Entirely separate from how ridiculous this statement is considering Mitt Romney's personality and already existing and entirely deserved reputation for mythomania, it terrifies me that you seem to think this is a good thing.

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.

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.

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

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

Because that road was one full of as tolerable decisions as could have been made under the circumstances, except for those decisions which were made by a radicalized Congress and acquiesced to by an at those points politically weak President, and those decisions which were watered-down versions of ones that would have been better. The bad decisions that caused the bad situation were those taken before the collapse, although it doesn't surprise me that you're unaware of that since you've never exhibited a more than casual familiarity with how cause and effect works.

This was a gaffe no doubt.  There's no point in defending or denying it.

It won't have an effect on the election, however.  The reason Romney will lose is something far greater than anything Axelrod said.

When the middle class is shrinking, create a dubious if/then conditional hypothetical alternative reality and pretend the middle class is not shrinking on paper.

The road we are on of course has led to increased wealth for the wealthy since 2009. Shrug.

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

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. 

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

Fixed that for you

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?

Certainly if there was greater tax revenue there is greater sums of money to give away to certain favored constituencies. But that doesn't seem to matter to many people.

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

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


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

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

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

There is of course a name for that personality trait. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greed)

People are willing to accept higher taxes in return for certain services but it has to be framed the right way. The Democrats have spent several decades being absolutely terrible at framing debates for the most part, especially Congressional ones, but when polled on specific issues lucidly described people often--not always but often--support somewhat more left-wing positions than election results or Congressional votes indicate.