But Obama has done it. Hey the RCP average finally caught up with Rasmussen, whose likely-voters polls have been showing this disapproval for months.
60 thoughts on “I Told You, Don’t Cross The Streams”
Comments are closed.
But Obama has done it. Hey the RCP average finally caught up with Rasmussen, whose likely-voters polls have been showing this disapproval for months.
Comments are closed.
I’m amazed it took 16 months.
It shocks me that half the country approves of this administration. How could it be any worse? Even if you’re a leftist, don’t the failures of this government bother you?
Don’t ask how it could be worse. It will be. Soon.
Even if you’re a leftist, don’t the failures of this government bother you?
I don’t consider myself a leftist, but I’ll bite. What failures are you talking about? We escaped a depression, job losses are way down, GDP growth is up, we’re knocking off Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders left and right, we have a sensible human spaceflight policy, investment in infrastructure, health, and science and technology are at all-time highs, the Dept. of Ed “Race to the Top” and revisions to No Child Left Behind are great, and it looks like we’re about to get the biggest improvement in our health care system since Medicare, which will also be the first serious effort to rein in health care inflation. If the bill passes on Sunday Obama will be hands-down the most successful domestic policy president since LBJ, despite the worst economy since Hoover, and he’s only been in office a year.
Your opinion of the political spectrum is as credible as any of your other opinions.
What failures are you talking about?
ROTFLMAO.
Jim,
Whatever you are smoking, if it’s legal, please send the rest of us some!
Jim, that’s a bit more generous than I’d be. I’d consider most of those items failures, current or pending. Also, “spending” does not equal “investment”.
Wait, Jim gives credit to Obama for the economy, when it’s currently in a worse state than the administrations own projections WITHOUT their “stimulus” package? Never mind the rest of Jim’s delusions, that one takes the cake.
Never mind what Jim is smoking, he needs a good anti-psychotic.
We “escaped a Depression”? Then what is this thing we are in? If you say “prosperity” then I know you work for the government. (And I’ll bet you clock out at exactly 5 pm too.)
We “escaped a Depression”? Then what is this thing we are in?
A deep recession. 10% unemployment is bad; 25% would have been much, much worse.
If you say “prosperity” then I know you work for the government. (And I’ll bet you clock out at exactly 5 pm too.)
As it happens, I own and run a small business. But you’re wrong about government employees: thousands of layoffs have shrunk the government payroll since Obama took office. The CDC estimates that we’ve lost 1,600 state and local public health workers. That’s bad news for everyone; without the ARRA things would be much worse.
when it’s currently in a worse state than the administrations own projections WITHOUT their “stimulus” package
The fact that the economy turned out to be worse than forecasted (by many, not just Romer) indicates that ARRA was even more necessary than the administration claimed at the time. Romer’s forecast of the impact of the ARRA has since been validated by every mainstream economic analysis (Moody’s, IHS Global Insight, etc.).
When Obama took office we were bleeding jobs; now we aren’t. And I’m supposed to consider that failure?
We did not “escape a depression.” The recession(s) of the late 70s and early 80s were worse, in most real respects. If the government (this goes for both parties) had let the banks and the auto manufacturers fail, hadn’t tried to intervene in the economy, and hadn’t tried to jack up spending to even more ridiculous heights, we’d be in a recovery, not a depression. Isn’t it obvious that propping up businesses that made and continue to make stupid decisions is a bad idea?
This kind of talk is just like claims about jobs saved. It’s political bullshit. Point to anything that the government has done that has had tangible results. Jeez, just follow the money in the “stimulus” and in the bailout. Didn’t really solve any of the problems we have.
I’m very discouraged by the willingness of some to abandon reality for some idea that the “right people” in charge will eventually make everything okay. Our government has become dangerous to all of us, not just some. Have you forgotten Bush and the GOP Congress? You may have the same kind of people running things in 2013, and treating every statement of the government as holy writ, despite all the evidence to the contrary, does us no good at all. We need to be skeptical, not credulous. Regardless of who is in power.
Incidentally, on the national security and war fronts, exactly how is Obama different from Bush? Looks pretty much the same to me, at least from the civil liberties and anti-war viewpoints. That’s not disappointing? Most of the true-blue Democrats I know are pissed about those issues alone.
The fact that the economy turned out to be worse than forecasted (by many, not just Romer) indicates that ARRA was even more necessary than the administration claimed at the time.
“Look at that, your shirt is all bloody now. But just think of how bloody it would have been if I HADN’T started punching you in the face.”
Would you care to diagram that logic? Because, apparently, I’m too smart to understand it.
But you’re wrong about government employees: thousands of layoffs have shrunk the government payroll since Obama took office.
And you’re wrong about government employees, too, because even if the government has laid off SOME workers, the private sector has laid of MANY more, to the point where government employees outnumber private sector employees.
And not just because of the Census, either.
When Obama took office we were bleeding jobs; now we aren’t. And I’m supposed to consider that failure?
Considering the fact you live in an alternate reality, what you think is or isn’t a failure isn’t particularly relevant.
You just want to have a chablis with him really, don’t you?
Looks pretty much the same to me, at least from the civil liberties and anti-war viewpoints.
There’s a big difference between starting an unnecessary war, and winding it down.
Considering the fact you live in an alternate reality, what you think is or isn’t a failure isn’t particularly relevant.
A lesson in reading comprehension:
Pro Libertate wrote: “Even if you’re a leftist, don’t the failures of this government bother you?”
In the context of that remark, what people in my “alternate reality” think is particularly relevant.
If the government (this goes for both parties) had let the banks and the auto manufacturers fail, hadn’t tried to intervene in the economy, and hadn’t tried to jack up spending to even more ridiculous heights, we’d be in a recovery, not a depression.
A recovery financed by what? If the feds had done nothing the markets would have continued to crater, there’d have been an accelerating cycle of bankruptcies, foreclosures, and layoffs, and the capital needed to fuel the economy would have gone straight into mattresses. This isn’t some crazy left-wing opinion; it’s utterly conventional wisdom.
Point to anything that the government has done that has had tangible results.
Here’s that link again to help get you started.
A lesson in remedial reading comprehension:
I don’t consider myself a leftist
Oh, that’s right, you were trying out your new satirical cap. Do yourself a favor and stick with the beanie.
A recovery financed by what?
Ahh, exposed yourself a little there Jim. We can’t have a recovery unless it’s financed. Speaks volumes.
A recovery financed by what? … the capital needed to fuel the economy would have gone straight into mattresses.
You answered your own question, yet again. That mattress money comes out when people feel secure. Raising debt makes them insecure. Failure is the strength of our economy. Stretching out failure and making it worse is all the government knows how to do. The only question is do they do it intentionally or out of ignorance.
You keep comparing today with an imaginary alternative. If makes you feel good about your economic ignorance. But you’re still wrong.
Let the banks fail and other banks would replace them (assuming the government doesn’t step in to somehow prevent that.) Banks are a profitable business generally.
Let the auto makers fail and people will still buy cars. Are you going to deny that? It might be domestic or foreign. Getting rid of the uncompetitive is good for everybody.
We have to service all that debt. That’s why gold is becoming popular with the public.
BTW, those banks are still carrying those toxic assets. Why? Because the government bailed them out. Had they not, those assets would have been dealt with and we’d be past that particular problem. Now it remains in the future instead of in the past.
We can’t have a recovery unless it’s financed.
Is it news to you that businesses can’t do anything — much less grow — without capital? That when banks can’t or won’t lend, the economy collapses? If you have an hour to spare I recommend this introduction to the topic.
That mattress money comes out when people feel secure.
Yes, and that’s starting to happen now.
Raising debt makes them insecure.
But not nearly as much as collapsing banks, stock values, and consumer confidence.
Let the banks fail and other banks would replace them
Look how well that worked with Lehmann. No, if you let big banks fail, other banks will stop lending so as to shore up their balance sheets, and protect themselves from failure. Which in turn will cause the economy to seize up, pushing more businesses and home owners into default, which will in turn cause more banks to fail. Is it really so hard to remember what we just went through?!?
Let the auto makers fail and people will still buy cars. Are you going to deny that?
Yes. Look at how car sales plummeted in late 2008. People did not still buy cars — they waited. If we’d let GM and Chrysler go under, putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work, not only would those families have abandoned any notion of buying a car anytime soon, but consumers with no connection to the auto industry would see unemployment going up, more houses in foreclosure, more businesses failing, the equity in their homes evaporating, and they’d do the cautious thing and postpone their car shopping as well.
Loss of consumer and investor confidence is a self-fulfilling and contagious phenomenon. Just letting it run its course would have left all of us poorer.
We have to service all that debt.
The TARP bailout money is being paid back, we may even make a profit on the deal. In the meantime, interest rates are at all-time lows. Averting a depression is expensive, but not nearly as expensive as the alternative.
Is it news to you that businesses can’t do anything — much less grow — without capital?
The majority of businesses were operating normally, and many were growing, all through ’08 and ’09. Your characterization of economic collapse as a result of 2 or 3 more Lehmans is NOT “utterly conventional wisdom” (outside of your own la-la land).
If you have an hour to spare I recommend this introduction to the topic.
I’ve heard that episode. Ira Glass does comedy much better, and i don’t think he was doing comedy that week.
Look how well that worked with Lehmann. No, if you let big banks fail, other banks will stop lending so as to shore up their balance sheets, and protect themselves from failure. Which in turn will cause the economy to seize up, pushing more businesses and home owners into default, which will in turn cause more banks to fail. Is it really so hard to remember what we just went through?!?
Jim, where’s the problem? Recessions are the times when we kill off failing businesses and banks. Of course, capital will seize up, that’s the point of the recession.
There’s this thing that you haven’t heard of, even though we’ve been discussing it for a year or more. It’s called moral hazard. When government rescues a business from failure, it encourages that business to fail (possibly in a different way, if new loopholes need to be exploited) again. You can’t regulate a business into profitability and competence, hence there’s no safeguard against the business turning into an economy-threatening failure again a few years down the road.
There’s also a closely related economic concept called conflict of interest which you also apparently have not heard of. For example, your “mainstream economic analysis” is flawed for one almost trivial reason. Those people made gobs of money (or more accurately failed to lose gobs of money) due to the government intervention in the markets. How many millions or billions of dollars would need to be at stake before those economists would say whatever they needed to say to get their hands on that money? My take is not very much. The money at stake in the attempt at economic recovery is far beyond the threshold for virtually all economists. I’d say that most economists would completely use up their credibility for the money involved.
Rahm: I have a radical idea. The door swings both ways, we could reverse the particle flow through the gate.
Obama: How?
Rahm: We’ll cross the streams.
Obama: ‘Scuse me Rahm? You said crossing the streams was bad!
Biden: Cross the streams…
Obama: You’re gonna endanger us, you’re gonna endanger all those nice Democrat folks in Congress who campaigned for us…
Rahm: Not necessarily. There’s definitely a *very slim* chance our political futures will survive.
Obama: (pause) I love this plan! I’m excited to be a part of it! LET’S DO IT!
Jim,
I would be good if you would take the time to get a real education in how an economy works.
If an automaker goes bankrupt its assets (like viable plants and popular brands) are bought. Any brands that are popular enough will still be made in any factories that can be profitable. This is all commonly accomplished during the bankruptcy process. It is common for the company to come out of bankruptcy smaller and stronger than before. Some workers may be displaced in the process but as long as someone is making cars, productive workers will be able to get jobs making cars.
There was a group that was interested in buying GM’s Fairfax plant and the brands/models it produced.
I used to work with a major failed bank (left several years before the failure). The fallacy is that the failure of the big banks meant that there were no banks left to pick up the pieces and to buy up all the assets for dimes on the dollar. There were. First, a number of larger banks backed out of the danger zone relatively early. Chase is an example of that.
Also, there are a huge number of medium-sized banks in the U.S. that could’ve picked up much of the slack, not to mention that a lot of capital than has been, essentially, frozen during this recession likely would’ve gone into starting new banks.
Finally, if banks and other companies had been allowed to fail, that doesn’t necessarily mean they’d have gone out of business. Restructuring, after all, is not exactly unheard of. There was a bit of that in retail last year, for instance.
I don’t doubt that more failures in financial services would’ve meant a deeper recession, with more blows to the economic indicators and more unemployment, but, once the dust settled, companies would’ve know where things stood, and could have bought up assets in the market. Part of the problem right now is with uncertainty–what will the government do next? I imagine with a more careful, less arrogantly intrusive strategy, we’d be well on our way to recovery by now.
It is common for the company to come out of bankruptcy smaller and stronger than before. Some workers may be displaced in the process but as long as someone is making cars, productive workers will be able to get jobs making cars.
Pshaw, Frank.
It’s not like Ford came out ahead of everyone else in the Big 3 when they took it upon themselves to restructure, instead of letting the government bail it out.
Oh, wait, they did…
And, yet, with such perfectly relevant examples such as Ford and GM, people still seem to insist that government bailouts are a GOOD thing.
As I said earlier, maybe I’m too smart to understand the “bailouts are good” logic.
In any case, trying to justify the “success” of the stimulus by saying it would have been worse without it is just creating an unfalsifiable hypothesis. You could just as easily say that not passing a stimulus would have (by actually leaving money in the private sector to be borrowed instead of having the government borrow it) made the economy better. I suspect that even a 20 or 25% unemployment rate would gotten the same response though, so I shouldn’t be surprised at people trying to use faith based economics to justify calling the current administration a “success”.
Chris L., we already knew the leftist narrative a year-and-a-half ago: if things get better – “Obama saved us!” If things don’t – “Bush wrecked everything!”
The point: predictable signals (e.g.: leftist drones like Jim) contain no information.
Information theory? Quantum theory? Titus! What a guy. Rand this is what makes your blog great.
Wait — wait… you run a business? Then how come you have time to post all these comments all the time? No one I know who runs a business has any time to do anything but run the business. They certainly don’t have time to troll the internet.
I was thinking the same thing Andrea. That and the little scream in my head that yelled, “I’D NEVER EVER EVER EVER WORK FOR YOU IN A MILLION YEARS!!!”
Chase is an example of that.
In “Too Big to Fail” (great read by the way) – one of the bits that stuck with me was a phone conversation that Jamie Dimon, CEO of Chase, your “safe bank”, had with Hank Paulson the weekend before the TARP bill passed.
He told Paulson that come Monday, without something being done, Merril Lynch and Morgan Stanley and a few others wouldn’t be able to open on the Monday because they insolvent. He was clear that when Chase closed on Monday night they wouldn’t be opening the doors again.
That’s why they had to bail out the banks. It was as close to the complete collapse of the western banking system as we’ve ever got. If Jamie Dimon, who is, in my opinion, one of the better of the bunch, was that terrified about what was happening, I tend to take notice.
This got to a point where it wouldn’t have mattered where your money was or what form it was in, even if you had Gold in a brokerage, because there’d be no mechanism for the Gold Broker to send you that money anymore.
No one I know who runs a business has any time to do anything but run the business. They certainly don’t have time to troll the internet
Doesn’t Rand run his own business?
Ford’s a bad example. Ford are the only US car company that had a strong range of vehicles that were designed and sold extremely well outside the US. Their problem was accelerating the plans they already had to bring their European designs into the US market and sell them.
GM has some moderate sellers in their Vauxhall and Opel brands outside the US but their big lines in the US market do nothing elsewhere. Not to mention their bizzare range of sub-marques.
Chrysler have been toast for decades and the kinder thing there would probably have been to let them go.
“I’D NEVER EVER EVER EVER WORK FOR YOU IN A MILLION YEARS!!!”
I worked for seven years for a mom and pop that were for Ralph Nader and Howard Dean.
Wait — wait… you run a business? Then how come you have time to post all these comments all the time? No one I know who runs a business has any time to do anything but run the business. They certainly don’t have time to troll the internet.
Well, now you do know one. I find the time by not watching much TV or having time-consuming hobbies (other than trying to get my private pilot’s license).
In any case, trying to justify the “success” of the stimulus by saying it would have been worse without it is just creating an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
No, sadly, we don’t get to run the universe both ways, and see which one turns out better. So we rely on impartial experts to sort through the causes and effects and render a verdict:
Jim,
The truth is, neither you, I, or anyone else has the ability to see into an alternate future with any kind of clarity. The experts don’t know (and certainly can’t prove) that is the case. They are guessing.
In any case, my point was that you were creating a thesis that could not be disproved (or proved) through empirical (as in can actually be measured) data. Again, it is just a guess.
we rely on impartial experts to sort through the causes and effects and render a verdict
Who deems these ‘experts’ impartial Jim? Are you impartial? Am I?
A suggestion. Apply principles that have shown themselves to be universal. Someone mentioned supply and demand. A very consistent principle.
You however, are always ready with an authority to support your point. Hmmm…
The NYT is such an authority with a proven track record.
Who deems these ‘experts’ impartial Jim?
You’re going to argue that the WSJ’s panel of forecasters is biased towards the Democrats? Really?
Someone mentioned supply and demand. A very consistent principle.
And yet the empirical evidence shows that it does not apply to health care.
Jim,
No expert in the known universe can see into an alternate quantum reality.
it does not apply to health care.
Alright Jim, I read that whole damned articled. It seems that many people in those organizations are as screwed up as you are. So how does anything in that article show that supply and demand does not apply?
So how does anything in that article show that supply and demand does not apply?
It shows that there is wide variation in physician supply between different areas of the U.S. If this was Economics 101 you’d expect areas with greater supply to have lower costs and better quality, the result of competition as that greater supply chased fixed demand. But instead, those areas have dramatically higher costs, and quality of care that is no better. There are more doctors, so there are more doctor visits and procedures. There are more hospitals, so there are more and longer hospital stays. Demand expands to meet supply — something that doesn’t happen with most economic goods.