Who's more "out of touch"?

[Democratic Hawk]

Obama understands that the key to a strong economy is a prosperous middle class (though Republicans are always going to obstruct on that objective); Romney, on the other hand, is totally and utterly in thrall to the failed supply-side fantasies of the past 30 years that will only further 'burden' the US with debt, more debt and even more debt, just as it did during the 'Eighties' and 'Noughties'

Obama has failed the middle class.  He doesn't understand that the engine for prosperity is business.  He sees only government as the provider of prosperity. 

All the 'Crash of 2008' tells me is that there is a need for more proactive government to 1) regulate the excesses of the market and 2) create a more fair society and if President Obama has a vision for government its that of it facilitating 'gradle-to-grave' opportunity

You'd be hard pushed selling me supply-side given that 1) the US economy, during the presidency of George W Bush, yielded the fewest number of jobs this side of Herbert Hoover and 2) US median incomes declined. Hardly surprising the US economy hit the crappers to the extent that it did given the extent to which a nation's wealth became increasingly concentrated in the 1%

[Democratic Hawk]

Obama understands that the key to a strong economy is a prosperous middle class (though Republicans are always going to obstruct on that objective); Romney, on the other hand, is totally and utterly in thrall to the failed supply-side fantasies of the past 30 years that will only further 'burden' the US with debt, more debt and even more debt, just as it did during the 'Eighties' and 'Noughties'

Obama has failed the middle class.  He doesn't understand that the engine for prosperity is business.  He sees only government as the provider of prosperity.  

Can we vote for JJ or is it considered undue competition?

Just look at the country of your avatar to see what the "governmental approach" has given us.

Just look at Somalia to see what "limited government" has given us.

There is a difference between "limited government intervention in the economy" and "not government."  The old ways of big government, the Callahan style intervention are as bankrupted as, well, Greece

Unemployment when Jim Callaghan left office was 1.1 million having declined from the 1.5 million peak it reached as a consequence of the recession, which followed the 'Oil Crisis'. Then came the 'Monetarist Recession' and double-digit unemployment for most of the 1980s

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only thing driving your country to that level is the ruinous supply-side fantasies of the GOP. Obama, on the other hand, favours a more balanced approach, just as Clinton - by far the most economically successful of the 'neoliberal' presidents - did towards reducing the deficit

[Democratic Hawk]

Unemployment when Jim Callaghan left office was 1.1 million having declined from the 1.5 million peak it reached as a consequence of the recession, which followed the 'Oil Crisis'. Then came the 'Monetarist Recession' and double-digit unemployment for most of the 1980s

And that "terrible" economy produced Thatcher (1979), Thatcher (1983), Thatcher (1987), and Major (1992).  Even when Labour won, it was "New Labour," that had finally moved away from "Sunny Jim," and his "cloudy future."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clinton's famous quote was, "The era of big government is over."  He understood that the old ways simply no longer worked.  Obama has yet to learn that lesson.

Just get back to owning the Reactionary Party's elite-enriching, middle class emaciating economic policies, J.J. because that's the root cause as to why the US economy hit the crappers to the extent that it did. The 'Noughties' impressed me not. Given the decline in US median incomes, I'm not surprised there was a loss of confidence in the US sub-prime market, which as events unfolded proved near catastrophic not only for the US economy but the wider global economy as a consequence

Furthermore, job creation under the Obama presidency, unlike that of the Bush 43 presidency (2001-2005), is being driven by the private sector as opposed to the public sector, so this "old ways" guff you're spouting doesn't quite hold water. That said, I can't condone spending cuts just yet and won't until U1 is below 5%. Unemployment is a fate worse than death in the UK, so I'd be surprised if it was any better in the US

Unemployment is certain to be lower in November 2012 than it was in January 2009, which is more than can be said for November 2004 compared with January 2001. And if conservative talking heads can credit Bush 43 with getting the US out of the "Clinton-Gore Recession", yet get re-elected at a time of higher unemployment than when he took office, then I can sure as hell credit Obama with overcoming an even greater challenge. There is a world of difference between an economic contraction of 0.3% and one of 5.1% - and austerity was not the road out of that one

When the Republicans join the real world and accept the necessity to raise taxes, especially on the wealthiest, as Bill Clinton did and Obama does, in addition to cutting spending, they'll be somewhat fit to exist but not until. I, for one, haven't forgotton the fiscally ruinous presidency of George W Bush (proud of it, J.J?), who's policies to this day primarily drives the deficit and fuel the debt. He deserves credit for TARP but that's about it but had tax rates been held at fiscally responsible Clinton levels, I'd wager that America would have been better prepared to weather the storm that came

... If only Obama had been dealt the Clinton legacy of prosperity, solvent government and low unemployment. I suspect like every post-war Democratic president before him the gross federal debt as a % of GDP would have declined

[Democratic Hawk]

Unemployment when Jim Callaghan left office was 1.1 million having declined from the 1.5 million peak it reached as a consequence of the recession, which followed the 'Oil Crisis'. Then came the 'Monetarist Recession' and double-digit unemployment for most of the 1980s

And that "terrible" economy produced Thatcher (1979), Thatcher (1983), Thatcher (1987), and Major (1992).  Even when Labour won, it was "New Labour," that had finally moved away from "Sunny Jim," and his "cloudy future."'

But that's just it though. If the late 1970s marked a crisis of Keynesian 'social democracy', the 'Crash of 2008' was a crisis of neoliberalism's very own making

[Democratic Hawk]

But that's just it though. If the late 1970s marked a crisis of Keynesian 'social democracy', the 'Crash of 2008' was a crisis of neoliberalism's very own making

You are, however, arguing that Romney is "out of touch" because he doesn't support programs similar to the "Keynesian 'social democracy'" of the 1970's, which failed in the 1970's and which, so far, have not produced a favorable result today in the US.

2008 had to deal with debt and a huge number of people leveraged (at all levels).

(And just to be clear, Labour no longer favors those 1970's policies, and starting winning when they left those policies behind.)

Aye, and McCain would have guaranteed more of it.

As would Hilary.  The idea is who they are guaranteeing.  In that case, it would have been the home owner.  It would have lead to a consumer recovery, broader based and reliant on continuous governmental expenditures.  Home prices have been falling again and, after four years, this crisis continues.

I don't disagree with the premise that there was too much spending, but the way to solve was not more spending without building equity. 

J.J.

The past few years, in the wake of the 'Crash of 2008' have been deeply troubling and moving forward Anglo-American capitalism is going to have emerge fundamentally different coming out than it was going in but it doesn't alter the fact that it is a crisis of neoliberalism. Logically, therefore, I don't think the solutions are on the right, which is why I'm of the deeply held conviction that capitalism needs to work for the majority more effectively like it did during the Golden Age - aka the post-war economic expansion. Of developed nations, both the US and UK rank among the most unequal in terms of wealth distribution. It needs someway, somehow redressing

I consider the Democratic Party, economically, way closer to my own Christian Democratic convictions, while it was the mass unemployment of the 1980s, which effectively turned me against the Conservative Party. Not one member of my extended family of my parents' generation ever experienced unemployment until then, so I dare say you can appreciate where I'm coming from. We have a safety net, but its poor, IMO, compared to that of Northern Europe whether the nature of welfare capitalism is social democratic (e.g. Scandinavia, the Netherlands) or Christian Democratic/conservative (e.g. Germany, Austria)

[Democratic Hawk]

I'm not a class warrior. I'm working class to my core but that said it doesn't alter my conviction that the rich thrive most when the middle and working classes are thriving economically. I don't think the interests of capital and labour need not be necessarily irreconciliable

Well, you sure sound like it.

I'm angry that your party given all the damage done is not extinct. Pretty much impossible for a pragmatic moderate Democrat like Obama reaching across the aisle to work with a party that if the Earth was flat they'd have fallen off the right face of it. You've never in my life been more extreme

Progressive populism can ultimately save capitalism from neoliberalism. The middle class will rise again

[Democratic Hawk]

I'm not a class warrior. I'm working class to my core but that said it doesn't alter my conviction that the rich thrive most when the middle and working classes are thriving economically. I don't think the interests of capital and labour need not be necessarily irreconciliable

Well, you sure sound like it.

I'm angry that your party given all the damage done is not extinct. Pretty much impossible for a pragmatic moderate Democrat like Obama reaching across the aisle to work with a party that if the Earth was flat they'd have fallen off the right face of it. You've never in my life been more extreme

Progressive populism can ultimately save capitalism from neoliberalism. The middle class will rise again

I think what you call "progressive populism" is generally called class warfare. 

But how can it be class warfare when the wealthiest will thrive as a consequence of the middle class prosperity progressive populism will more, effectively, deliver? The Golden Age of Capitalism was a great period for ordinary people and, as a logical consequence, the wealthiest thrived

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, he is. Democrats, generally, have to steer close to the centre, indeed, Bruce Bartlett has made the case that Obama is a moderate conservative. Obama, like Bill Clinton before him, understands that in addition to cuts in spending, taxes are going to have to be raised, especially on those with the means to be able to pay more

And I'm sorry J.J. but given the fact that the Bush 43 economy generated the fewest number of jobs this side of Herbert Hoover, together with a decline in US median incomes when it comes to supply-side, I'm sceptical. Now if the answer to any economic downturn is to cut taxes and keep them permanently at those levels, where does it end when the next downturn comes along, and the next ...

Government should be raising sufficient revenues to pay for what it spends. Its called fiscal responsibility, yet, neither the UK nor the US seem to be particularly very good at it

[Democratic Hawk]

But how can it be class warfare when the wealthiest will thrive as a consequence of the middle class prosperity progressive populism will more, effectively, deliver? The Golden Age of Capitalism was a great period for ordinary people and, as a logical consequence, the wealthiest thrived

As soon as you talk about wealth, and there has been a lot of that on this thread, you are talking about class warfare.

Romney is rich.  He became rich by making good business decisions over a 20 year period.  There is nothing wrong with that.  That actually shows that he was "in touch" with consumers, who ultimately made him rich.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The great problem is that Obama has increased spending (unlike Clinton, on a net basis). 

Today, unemployment is 8.2%.  That is the lowest that it has been since February 2009.  The problems are:

1.  It is 0.1% lower than when he took office, not a big improvement.

2.  It took huge expenditures to get it there.

3.  After those huge expenditures, unemployment went rather dramatically.

4.  It looks like, with the recent numbers, unemployment will be increasing.   

This is about Obama 44 and possibly Romney 45, so Bush 43 really isn't that important, but let's look at it just for fun.  From 2/01 until 2/04, unemployment was low, but increased to 6.3, up 2.2 points at its high point. Obama, despite spending a lot more money, had the same 2.2 points.  The difference is that Bush 43 numbers continued to decline, and did so until 2008.  What drove up unemployment was the housing crisis of 2008.

Job creation was half of what was expected last month.

And what pray was the road out of the 'Great Recession'? Austerity . The ARRA hasn't added anything near to the gross federal debt that the Bush tax cuts ($3 trillion)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infographics/us-national-debt

Obama has seen the US through a much steeper economic downturn than the recession of 2001. I don't doubt it would have been worse without TARP [GWB's one saving grace]

But, for now, at least, unemployment concerns me more than deficits

[Democratic Hawk]

[

And what pray was the road out of the 'Great Recession'? Austerity . The ARRA hasn't added anything near to the gross federal debt that the Bush tax cuts ($3 trillion)

Stabilization, especially in the housing loan market, not job creation.  

By its nature, once the government program is finished, the jobs it created are finished.  It have potential as a short term method for dealing with employment, but sucks completely long term.  So the government either has to start more projects or watch unemployment rise.

Put the money into securing these loans.  It is a long term investment, but it will ultimately revalue the housing market, and create jobs.  It will also cost less long term, easing the crowding out of the private sector.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most of TARP funds were paid off, some at a profit:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARP

It was hugely unpopular, but it worked and it had limited fiscal impact on the national debt.

Do you know J.J? I'm beginning to wonder if our cultural fetish with home ownership hasn't been more trouble than its worth

[Democratic Hawk]

[

And what pray was the road out of the 'Great Recession'? Austerity . The ARRA hasn't added anything near to the gross federal debt that the Bush tax cuts ($3 trillion)

Stabilization, especially in the housing loan market, not job creation.  

By its nature, once the government program is finished, the jobs it created are finished.  It have potential as a short term method for dealing with employment, but sucks completely long term.  So the government either has to start more projects or watch unemployment rise.

Put the money into securing these loans.  It is a long term investment, but it will ultimately revalue the housing market, and create jobs.  It will also cost less long term, easing the crowding out of the private sector.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most of TARP funds were paid off, some at a profit:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARP

It was hugely unpopular, but it worked and it had limited fiscal impact on the national debt.

Do you know J.J? I'm beginning to wonder if our cultural fetish with home ownership hasn't been more trouble than its worth

Well, not liking it harkens back to a Socialist economy, perhaps even beyond Foote and Benn.  Obama not addressing this directly for nearly four years is a very good indication of how "out of touch" he is.  It will be driven home over the summer.

I'm not even going there , J.J.

[Democratic Hawk]

I'm not even going there , J.J.

You are to the point of complaining about home ownership.  I'm not sure if even the former Viscount Stansgate would agree with that!

I complain about home ownership, too.  As a libertarian, I feel the government has done far too much to ensure that people who do not have assets and have limited income are indebted on a major purchase like a house.

You make a very fair point given that growth in the financial and real estate sectors wasn't healthy growth (or certainly a big chunk of it wasn't). This growth was due to a reliance on debt and products built on debt, which was assisted by an easy availability of credit

And I'm no libertarian (except on guns). I just think someway, somehow Anglo-American capitalism needs to be better than it is. Though you and I are certain to disagree on that

My conscience right now is just not comfortable with public spending cuts given the UK's 8.4% rate of unemployment and I'm critical of the liberal welfare model, at least, compared with the Nordic (social democratic welfarist) and the social market (Christian Democratic/conservative welfarist) models

Seriously, wishing death on my enemy would be kinder than wishing them unemployment

Anyway, a left-leaning Christian Democrat is what I am. Take it or leave it!

[Democratic Hawk]

I'm not even going there , J.J.

You are to the point of complaining about home ownership.  I'm not sure if even the former Viscount Stansgate would agree with that!

I complain about home ownership, too.  As a libertarian, I feel the government has done far too much to ensure that people who do not have assets and have limited income are indebted on a major purchase like a house.

They all do have a major asset, a home.  There are a number of economic and, yes social, good in helping people maintain a capital asset.

Which is great . I doubt I'll need to buy one myself since I'll inherit the one in which I live but I know people who are mortgaged to the hilt, and believe me they've not much left to spend on wider private sector goods and services. There is more to an economy than housing

In fact, when the time comes, I'm selling up and going travelling. See the world a bit. Nothing to keep me in Durham