PA-Muhlenberg: Obama with a moderate lead

[AmericanNation]

Isn't being at 45 a bad sign for Obama?  It isn't like he doesn't have name recognition.  Undecideds tend to break 75to25 or more against an incumbent in the last several months.   

[AmericanNation]

Bush was ahead of were Obama is in most key indicators and everyone keeps acting like Obama is like Clinton (triangulating, moderating, centrist-ish)... he isn't.   

[AmericanNation]

Kerry's primary was over much quicker.  New Hampshire basically ended it.  Obviously the challenger will strengthen now that the general started yesterday. 

[AmericanNation]

http://obamaisntworking.com/stories/in-your-neighborhood-allentown/
http://obamaisntworking.com/stories/in-your-neighborhood-allentown/

http://obamaisntworking.com/stories/obama-job-plan-late/
http://obamaisntworking.com/stories/obama-job-plan-late/

Having grown up in a Union+Dem Lawyer household in the rust belt I can say with some authority that ads like this are just devastating to a reelection bid.   

[AmericanNation]

Unfavorability #'s on Romney are probably soft because many republicans are/were unsold or uncertain on his true social positions and the 'Romneycare vs Obamacare' thing.  That stuff is probably a bonus in the general.     

[AmericanNation]

you mean "people that don't know what they really think and often change their mind" Bush in 1999 wasn't strong with independents either. 

[AmericanNation]

"A new poll from the centrist Democratic group Third Way surveyed 1,000 independent voters in 12 swing states. Obama leads Romney among this group by 44 to 38 percent. But the catch came here: Asked to rate themselves from 1 to 10 on an ideological scale, the group collectively put itself at 5.2, slightly right of center. Meanwhile, respondents put Obama at 3.9 and Romney at 6.1—each of them equidistant (1.1 points) from the center. In other words, they said Obama is exactly as liberal as Romney is conservative, and they said they are a bit closer to Romney."
-daily beast (today)

You think that's a problem for Romney?  back flips and cartwheels are in order.

[AmericanNation]

Because Romney is competent.  If you want government to do more, than Romney is your guy because he is a technocratic machine of efficiency.  If you want government to cost less than Romney is your guy because he isn't a radical ideologue hell bent on spending the country into oblivion.  Understanding that COST has to be weighed against BENEFIT isn't a revolutionary concept, but only one party has shown an ability to acknowledge it... or pass a budget for that matter.

[AmericanNation]

GOP = passed a serious budget through the house
Dem s = no budget for 3 years


GOP = growing economy, profitable businesses, jobs
Dem s = flat-line economy, demagog business, ZERO jobs

GOP = against failed 800billion stimulus package that created ZERO jobs and exploded debt  
Dem s = In favor of worst government spending package in the history of the country

I think I could create ONE job if I pilled up 5 TRILLION of Debt

[AmericanNation]

"You're not seriously describing President Obama as a "radical ideologue" surely?"

Not necessarily, but the dominant element of his party is and he will never stand up to them.  Spending on his watch has certainly been in the realm of "Radical" and spending is a major part of "ideology."

Am I saying that Romney will balance the budget and reduce the national debt?

Sort of, baring a new military campaign the deficits will trend toward balanced over 8 to 10 years and the solvency of entitlements will be strengthened.

[AmericanNation]

GOP = passed a serious budget through the house
Dem s = no budget for 3 years

Both parties have passed serious budgets. They differ on spending priorities and cuts. You're either ignorant or a lying hack. Maybe both?
Where is this budget you claimed democrats passed? Obama's has been voted on and defeated without receiving a single vote and Harry Reid has not brought a budget to the floor for 3 years despite being required by law to do so annually.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You know that we've had about two straight years of job creation, right? That GDP is at a record high?

Going from 8.5% unemployment to 8.3% with an increase of people NOT working isn't exactly stellar job creation.  ZERO net jobs is a marvalous acomplishment. One to Two percent GDP growth isn't 'good' either.  I'm not sure what you mean by "record." Hidden inflation may negate much of the 2% GDP growth, but there's no way to tell.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is a wide consensus among economists that the stimulus propped up GDP and kept unemployment down. The debate is over whether if it was unnecessary and how much it helped. We don't know if it starved off 11.5% UE or 20%.  
LOL, Paul Krugman is not a "consensus."  He is widely considered a joke.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If your hackery was inversely proportional to your ability to create jobs, you'd probably destroy millions with that $5 trillion.
Ahhh yes, the personal attack because I hurt you with the truth. Ouch, you hurt my feelings as you surrendered the 'high ground.'

[AmericanNation]

Obama's private-sector job creation record at this stage in his presidency is actually better than GWB's was. The overall job numbers are worse because so many public-sector jobs have been eliminated under Obama, whereas Bush II presided over a massive increase in the public-sector workforce.

The Clinton recession and 9/11 was tough to turn into 4% unemployment and 4% GDP growth, but he did manage to make it happen. 

[AmericanNation]

[(Clinton era) + (dot com bust)] recession.  More believable? ? ?   

[AmericanNation]

Of course the Bush tax cuts balanced the budget after many years of huge deficits under tax and spend liberal Clinton, as we all know. And Paul Krugman is obviously not a Nobel Laureate.

Sigh, Clinton worked with a R congress (caved into, than took credit for) working toward a balanced budget.  At the height of the dot com bubble the government ran a surplus (1 possibly 2 years depending on if you count the social security raid) Bush inherited the mess from the bubble burst and Clinton's failed foreign policy associated problems and promptly stimulated the economy, which in turn rebounded AND they budgeted a march toward a balanced budget.  You will notice the deficit got smaller every year.  Unfortunately a Real Estate Time bomb caused by old federal laws and regulations exploded at the end of his term.  

It is interesting that Bush probably would have left a surplus nearly identical to the Clinton-GOP 90's had the financial system not been poisoned for over 30 years.      

Paul Krugman obviously IS a Nobel Laureate.  He is also widely regarded as a joke.   

[AmericanNation]

Nobel Laureate.

...

widely regarded as a joke.   

Uh...

Niall Ferguson, historian and Harvard Business School professor, explained why he doesn't agree with New York Times Columnist Paul Krugman and mentions his declining reputation among serious people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHPwYgkjU8k&feature=related

If that's to complicated for you, this is much simpler
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OXBwrOofPM

[AmericanNation]

Niall Ferguson...

widely regarded as a joke...


Niall Ferguson...

Hmmmmmmm.

I don't really need to defend Ferguson (his seats at Oxford, Harvard, and Stanford speak pretty well for him.)  He is at least a serious person.  Krugman has become a prop of a failed administration.   

[AmericanNation]

Niall Ferguson...

widely regarded as a joke...


Niall Ferguson...

Hmmmmmmm.

I don't really need to defend Ferguson (his seats at Oxford, Harvard, and Stanford speak pretty well for him.)  He is at least a serious person.  Krugman has become a prop of a failed administration.   

Lay off the Kool-Aid and stop slandering someone who clearly knows what he's talking about.

ALSO (just as a side note) Princeton Econ department >>>> Harvard Econ department

Pual Krugman obviously has become a political prop and his reputation has suffered as a result.  Not sure how you get "Slander" out of public knowledge. 

ALSO (just as a side note) Your note is irrelevant because Niall teaches in the History department and at the business school at Harvard... you know the top school in the country (tied with Wharton).  You also left out the cow schools Oxford and Stanford.   

[AmericanNation]

Because Romney is competent.  If you want government to do more, than Romney is your guy because he is a technocratic machine of efficiency.  If you want government to cost less than Romney is your guy because he isn't a radical ideologue hell bent on spending the country into oblivion.  Understanding that COST has to be weighed against BENEFIT isn't a revolutionary concept, but only one party has shown an ability to acknowledge it... or pass a budget for that matter.

Spending isn't the problem, its unfunded spending. Deficit = the shortfall between spending as a % of GDP & revenues as a % of GDP. And, ultimately, only a balanced approach involving spending cuts and tax increases, especially on the primary beneficiaries of the supply-side tax cuts which added trillions to the gross federal debt (and that ain't the middle class, given that median US incomes declined under the stewardship of GWB), would be the responsible path to take. Bill Clinton - by far the most economically successful post-1981 - proved that much and, at least, George W Bush rode into the Oval Office, he was able to prevent the GOP in Congress from cutting taxes too recklessly

Thant sounds good and I agree, until you start looking at specific taxes to raise.  Most proposed increases would decrease revenue after a few years and eliminate jobs, so WE should probably focus on raising revenue not raising taxes.  This 'Buffet' tax for example would jack capitol gains on high earners to 30%.  That would be near the highest rate in the world, next to our highest corporate tax in the world.  Is the few billion of revenue that tax will bring in going to be increasingly offset by 'lost' revenue as a result of it?? Yes, so it's hard to support.

Ever occurred to you Republicans that had it not been for US median incomes declining during the 'Noughties', there may not have been a sub-prime crisis, which as events unfolded proved nothing short of near catastrophic for both the US and wider global economy?

I think about that.  The Federal government forcing banks to loan to people they shouldn't and (in the past) wouldn't lend to probably was a bigger factor.

Prosperity needs to be broad-based, which is why capitalism needs to be fundamentally different coming out of the 'Great Recession' then it was going in

Probably need to be more capitalistic going forward, agreed.

I'm not adverse to some tax cuts as a counter-cyclical measure but with that must come an understanding that a day will come when they have to be raised. My point being if the answer was to cut, cut, cut and cut taxes each and every time a downturn came along, where would it end .... ?

I used to think that exact line, until I realized that a tax cut has little effect unless there is CONFIDENCE the rate will be 'low' long term.  So, a rock solid 20% to 25% income tax is the best option at all times.  Counter-cyclical measures should be FED money supply, federal spending etc.  You can ratchet those back in 'boom' times.  ...So, spending combined with tax reform is the problem.

And no I don't think adding $3 trillion to the gross federal debt to counter a recession, during 2001, in which the economy contracted by only 0.3%, and which, ultimately, yielded the fewest number of jobs of any presidential term this side of Herbert Hoover, sound economic stewardship given that a modest, by comparison, $800 bn ARRA has countered the effects of a much more severe downturn

I don't want to spend time comparing Bush and Obama, but lets just say Bush did a number of things well and Obama hasn't exactly done as many.

TARP, meanwhile, was George W's one saving grace. I'll give him that. Because its clear to me were it not for the actions of government, central bankers and policy makers in the wake of the 'Crash of 2008', a reprisal of the Great Depression would have been inevitable

Yea, it is fair to say Bush, Paulson, and Bernanke had learned some lessons from 1929 and made a lot of good decisions.  Why when Obama was working on TARP2 did he change it from an awesome model to a crap-tacular bailout package?  I've never heard a good reason about that.

[AmericanNation]

Probably need to be more capitalistic going forward, agreed.

I said prosperity needs to be more broad-based not less . The 'Crash of 2008' has, totally and utterly, discredited the neoliberal mantra espoused by Friedrich von Hayek

How? The experience of this problem, which was started by government FORCING banks to lend to people they HAD always judged (correctly) to not be creditworthy bolsters my argument (or one Hayek would make), not undermines it.  A big government+crony-ist time bomb goes off and you side with them? why? 
Also,
Is Obama pro big government?... yes
Is Obama a crony-ist?... yes
Don't support the problem you claim to care about solving.