Nov 8, 2016 - The lesser of two evils?
- Thread starter TX Redman
- Start date
- Status
I had an interesting conversation before the Georgetown game with a friend of mine who is also posts on this board. He voted for Trump and I voted for Clinton. During our talk I said that if McCain had run, I would have voted for McCain and my friend said if Biden had run he would have voted for Biden.
I mention this because throughout this thread, posters are labeling those who disagree with them as leftists and right wing conservatives. This only divides us more. Fortunately, while my friend and I have different views, we are not extremists and can have an intelligent conversation regarding our beliefs. Life is not black and white, but some want to make politics that way. There were posts on this thread questioning others faith, values, and morals because of how they voted. That is totally nonsensical. Someone even insinuated that because I supported Clinton, my one redeeming value was being a loyal St. Johns fan, lol. Until we learn to listen to each other without trying to defend our own beliefs, we will continue to be a divided country.
For what it's worth, I am a Black male who was born in 1948 and my favorite President was Dwight Eisenhower.
I mention this because throughout this thread, posters are labeling those who disagree with them as leftists and right wing conservatives. This only divides us more. Fortunately, while my friend and I have different views, we are not extremists and can have an intelligent conversation regarding our beliefs. Life is not black and white, but some want to make politics that way. There were posts on this thread questioning others faith, values, and morals because of how they voted. That is totally nonsensical. Someone even insinuated that because I supported Clinton, my one redeeming value was being a loyal St. Johns fan, lol. Until we learn to listen to each other without trying to defend our own beliefs, we will continue to be a divided country.
For what it's worth, I am a Black male who was born in 1948 and my favorite President was Dwight Eisenhower.
What I am finding most fascinating is this phenomenon or I guess idea/term called propaganda. We all know the term, use it and confront it, and we think we know what it means. But think about what it meant and the power it had in Nazi Germany, which was of course in your face type of power. Now - reflecting on your words above - propaganda is in a way almost silent, most subtle, most powerful force tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of someone's own choosing, you begin to wonder what happened to the friend or relative you used to know. With such power to shape human minds ...
I think what i was trying to say came out all too wrong. Wat I wanted to say (leaving out subnational identities on the rise in many parts of the world) was why are apparent alternatives identities allowed to exist (say the white conservative male and female) because wouldn't the propaganda machine easily decimate these identities, make those with such identities feel so demoralized that any hint to resistance is squelched. And it got me thinking to the most ferocious homily in 1984 that explains why:
"He paused, and for a moment assumed again his air of a schoolmaster questioning a promising pupil: ’How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?’ Winston thought. ’By making him suffer,’ he said. ’Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating? It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery is torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself. Progress in our world will be progress towards more pain. The old civilizations claimed that they were founded on love or justice. Ours is founded upon hatred. In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. Everything else we shall destroy everything. Already we are breaking down the habits of thought which have survived from before the Revolution. We have cut the links between child and parent, and between man and man, and between man and woman. No one dares trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer. But in the future there will be no wives and no friends. Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card. We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no more need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — for ever.’"
Thanks for your good words Mr. Panther. I do visit a number of social forums online and in person, and I can tell you there is incredible hatred all around where peoples minds are so shut off that they are speaking over each other. Hence where you mention questioning others faith, values, and morals, I think these are sensitive subject areas but I find that discussing these are precisely what breaks down divisions. At least that has been my experience in any setting like my community at work and home, and surprisingly a discussion forum on a common, beloved basketball team such as this one. What i often find in discussions about faith, values and morals is how much (even ones who are agnostic or atheist) we hold common positions.
Ez-uzi, thank you for taking me back to Room 101 in Orwell's original words.
Panther 2, I have added the old Mad magazine citation to your line about our 34th President.
"For what it's worth, I am a Black male who was born in 1948 and my favorite President was Dwight Eisenhower" who came to office in 1959 following the untimely death of John Foster Dulles.
Panther 2, I have added the old Mad magazine citation to your line about our 34th President.
"For what it's worth, I am a Black male who was born in 1948 and my favorite President was Dwight Eisenhower" who came to office in 1959 following the untimely death of John Foster Dulles.
Spocky Ramone
Well-known member
Dulles? I would have thought they would have gone with Spiro Agnew
Good point. You can include me as someone who would have voted Republican if I found the candidate to be tolerable. I respect President Obama and I think time will be favorable to his legacy. However, I also believe in change after eight years. If one party were in office for 12 or, God forbid, 16 consecutive years we could suffer from imbalance.
I do not like anything about Hillary Clinton. I was not "with her". I don't think she is the criminal that some folks do, but I also was not at all enthused about voting for her. Mine was an anti-Trump vote.
So, I agree with Panther. There are leftists and right wingers, but there are also some people who are undedicated to either side.
And there are some who are trying to figure out what a side looks like
...Seriously though one way to cut through the morass is have a policy discussion based on what works and what does not, and what more needs to be done. Believe it or not data is widely available, and then it is a simpler idea of analyzing what policies do make sense by "looking backwards". One great comparison would be to compare President Obama and President Reagan in terms of economic, financial and social achievements.
For now let me just provide some salient findings on President Obama's economic policies - note I am using official statistics and I am not injecting my opinion:
Economic and Regulatory Policies of President Obama:
1. Raise taxes – across virtually every major federal tax. Moreover, raise tax rates on the top two income tax rates by nearly 20% (one deductions phase-out); raise capital gains tax rate; and enlist new taxes a la Obamacare taxes.
2. Federal spending – right off the bat we had an (highly underestimated meaning I trillion is a heavily under-reported number) $1 trillion stimulus bill, and we will not discuss the merits or demerits of this policy. Federal spending increased by 28% in 2012, and was projected to rise to 57% by 2021.
3. Expand monetary policy by lowering the cost to borrow money and thus lower the value of money.
4. Across-the-board higher regulations, from health care to finance to energy, environment and elsewhere.
The results:
1. Federal debt – started at $9.99 trillion at the end of the financial year 2008 (the US financial year runs to September 30) to $19.95 trillion at the end of 2016 (www.usgovernmentspending.com). Simple arithmetic suggests that more than $1.2 trillion per annum was added in debt over this 8 year period. Fun fact: the $9.96 trillion increase over this 8 year period is just slightly less than the $9.99 trillion debt that the country accumulated in 219 years. Holy moly.
2. Economic growth –not one single year did GDP reach or went over 3%. Some analyst argue it was the biggest recession since the (crusades) great depression, and that it was all Bush younger’s handling of the economy that led to the situation President Obama inherited. Nevertheless, the last time that real GDP (not nominal GDP) grew by 3% or more was in 2005 under Bush the younger. That means 11 years without growth going over 3% (a bench mark of success). Just to shed some comparison not only with smaller government economic policies but also bigger government (but not massive ones like President Obama) economic policies but of course recognizing different contexts – JFK 6.1% GDP growth in 1962; Carter 5.6% in 1978, Bush younger 3.8% in 2004 and I am not going to mention Reagan’s highest figure and the year.
3. Jobs creation - 7.6% unemployment rate in January 2009 went down to 4.9% in October 2016. Looks groovy right? Well these are my alt-facts, so the number of people employed went up by almost 10 million people and number of unemployed went down by almost 4 million (I padded these numbers up not down), but citizens NOT in the labor force went up by 13.5 million, while the civilian non-institutional population (meaning the dudes who are not in prison or institutionalized elsewhere) went up by 19.8 million. Are you seeing a pattern here to refute applause??? Ok so you might ask what all this means? Because you cant talk about job creation without talking about labour force participation and also dis-aggregating public from private jobs - I couldn't find the data on breakdown but my suspicion suggests with the amount of money the country was going into debt, Obama created and expanded public employment through federal funds.
4. Labor participation rate and for whom the bells toll – First, what the hell is it? The labor force participation rate is the percentage of people in the civilian noninstitutionalized population, age 16 or older, who are either working or actively seeking work. This indicator reflects people’s decisions about the incentives of working or looking for work compared with doing something else such as attending school, caring for family members, or retiring, or in my case just musings. In short the higher the % point the more people are working. Anyhow the rate went from 65.8% in February 2009 ([URL][URL]http://www.tradingeconomics.com/[/URL][/URL]) to 62.8% in October 2016 ([URL][URL]https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm[/URL][/URL]). To shed some light on the quantum of all this, 94.33 million Americans were not in the labor force in July 2016, which is an improvement from June 2016’s 94.52 million; and the labor force participation rate improved slightly, increasing a tenth of a point to 62.8 percent from June’s 62.7 percent (Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics). More fun facts: In September 2015, the labor force participation rate dropped to 62.4 percent, its lowest point ever since 1977. The best it’s been since Barack Obama took office is 65.8 percent in February 2009, the month after Obama was sworn in amid a recession.
5. How about money? Median household annual income: Well let’s start with saying that the median household annual income (that is the average across all the household) has remained stagnant in real terms under Obama. So in January 2009, median household income, in nominal terms, was slightly above $50,000. According to Sentier Research, median household annual income in September, 2016, the most recent period for which data is available, was $57,616. Hey that looks good, no? Let’s us look deeper, so when we adjusted for the Consumer Price Index, real seasonally adjusted median household income (in September 2016 dollars) was about $57,500 in January 2009, virtually the same as it is almost eight years later. Or put in another way, “in real dollar terms, the median annual income is 1.5% lower (-$884) than its interim high in January 2008 but well off its low in August 2011.
Now if you're interested in comparing the same indicators for President Reagan - the baseline and final Figures in 1989, and recall the situation the Reagan inherited and when you look at the baseline for 1981 you will see in many ways it was worse than what Obama inherited. Look at jobs, real growth rate average, inflation rate, median incomes, and other indicators of interest. Now simply compare across both Presidents and make your own conclusions.
The point of all this is that we can more systematically choose policies and regulations and laws by looking the performance on them, rather than the rhetoric and the politics.
Ezi Uzi, I've been enjoying your posts and find them insightful. I also am staying out of a lot of this because my BP's been high recently and I don't want to start medication. SO rather than actively participate in the debate I'm going to post articles that might be interesting for both sides to read when considering a couple of the points you made.
Fed Debt:
Public Employment levels. Federal jobs were down marginally during the first 6 years of the Obama presidency, overall public sector employment nationwide was down significantly in the first 6 years and indications are it did not grow much in the last two years :
Work Force Participation: Note the U6 unemployment rate which takes work force participation of the underempolyed into account went from 8.8% to 16.5% as part of the Bush recession. At the time of this year's election it was back down to 9.3%.
Household Income: Certainly there were dips during the recession but the overall growth in Household income did not vary greatly during the Obama administration vs. the previous 40 years.
Fed Debt:
Public Employment levels. Federal jobs were down marginally during the first 6 years of the Obama presidency, overall public sector employment nationwide was down significantly in the first 6 years and indications are it did not grow much in the last two years :
Work Force Participation: Note the U6 unemployment rate which takes work force participation of the underempolyed into account went from 8.8% to 16.5% as part of the Bush recession. At the time of this year's election it was back down to 9.3%.
Household Income: Certainly there were dips during the recession but the overall growth in Household income did not vary greatly during the Obama administration vs. the previous 40 years.
Thanks for sharing all these. You are probably seeing both the keen insight my discipline brings and perhaps the slight of hand it allows. I like the last one the best because for me being categorical about data refs and authority refs are the basic foumdation.
Will provide you with some insights on how quantitatives work, what they are measuring and how they can be massaged.
But before providing insights on different measures and calculations, for now, By using the same exact data sources, same exact indicators, same exact simple calculations, compare across Reagan and Obama 8 years (because its the closest like vs like scenario possible) and see what you see. Lets ignore public vs private jobs for now. Just total jobs.
BTW I take full credit for teaching Austour about the U6 and how the U3 is meaningless
I do blame Obama for massive deficits and spending and I blamed GWB also. The last 16 years will go down as ruining out standard of living in the not too distant future. Keep in mind as Austour and all the old R&P people remember I have been railing about this for 16 years now
That being said in regards to workforce participation the numbers Ez Uzi gave are accurate. Keep in mind U6 is different from work force participation as Ez Uzi I'm sure knows very well.
Work Force participation is never going to recover dramatically. Sure it can tick up especially with reconstruction programs and if manufacturing can be brought back to the states to a certain extent but it's been downtrending for a while. I'll give you the biggest factor to this in my opinion. Baby Boomers.
They are getting older and exiting the workforce. This trend is very strong and the younger generation has a lower child birth rate. Look at Japan. Getting older. I think their work force participation rate is around 60% but look at their 20 year numbers and you will see a remarkable trend
Now ironically with lower birthrates you know what you need ? Immigration. Now I'm not saying this to give democrats material for anti trump rants especially since I support the 7 country thing but immigrants have higher birthrates and with an aging population you need new blood. Now things like automation,sending jobs overseas etc certainly are factors but demographics are huge.
But this is also why the budget deficit and debt are going to be such problems for us going down the road especially us younger people. Imagine this. 20 trillion in debt. We have still near record low interest rates. Look at where the debt is structured on the maturity curve ( as of today the 30 year treasury is paying around 3% ) but most of our debt is 5 years or under I'm pretty sure ) and look at where rates were only about 10 years ago. Now imagine a simple 1% uptick in interest rates across all parts of the yield curve. That's a 200 billion dollar a year increase in interest expense. Or look at it this way. I think our interest expense is about flat from where it was when Obama took office even though the debt has roughly doubled. So double the interest expense if we got back to more normal interest rates and think about what that means
If that doesn't send chills down republican and democrat spines I dont know what will. That's why GWB and Obama were failures ( I consider GWB much worse but that isn't saying much since I think he is one of the worst ever )
I do blame Obama for massive deficits and spending and I blamed GWB also. The last 16 years will go down as ruining out standard of living in the not too distant future. Keep in mind as Austour and all the old R&P people remember I have been railing about this for 16 years now
That being said in regards to workforce participation the numbers Ez Uzi gave are accurate. Keep in mind U6 is different from work force participation as Ez Uzi I'm sure knows very well.
Work Force participation is never going to recover dramatically. Sure it can tick up especially with reconstruction programs and if manufacturing can be brought back to the states to a certain extent but it's been downtrending for a while. I'll give you the biggest factor to this in my opinion. Baby Boomers.
They are getting older and exiting the workforce. This trend is very strong and the younger generation has a lower child birth rate. Look at Japan. Getting older. I think their work force participation rate is around 60% but look at their 20 year numbers and you will see a remarkable trend
Now ironically with lower birthrates you know what you need ? Immigration. Now I'm not saying this to give democrats material for anti trump rants especially since I support the 7 country thing but immigrants have higher birthrates and with an aging population you need new blood. Now things like automation,sending jobs overseas etc certainly are factors but demographics are huge.
But this is also why the budget deficit and debt are going to be such problems for us going down the road especially us younger people. Imagine this. 20 trillion in debt. We have still near record low interest rates. Look at where the debt is structured on the maturity curve ( as of today the 30 year treasury is paying around 3% ) but most of our debt is 5 years or under I'm pretty sure ) and look at where rates were only about 10 years ago. Now imagine a simple 1% uptick in interest rates across all parts of the yield curve. That's a 200 billion dollar a year increase in interest expense. Or look at it this way. I think our interest expense is about flat from where it was when Obama took office even though the debt has roughly doubled. So double the interest expense if we got back to more normal interest rates and think about what that means
If that doesn't send chills down republican and democrat spines I dont know what will. That's why GWB and Obama were failures ( I consider GWB much worse but that isn't saying much since I think he is one of the worst ever )
I would suggest the global economy of 2008 bears little resemblance to the global economy of 1980. I would also suggest that Obama was not a savior (nor was Reagan, whose long term affects on the economy were not nearly as glowing as his short term affects). I am merely pointing out that your post refers to negatives that were a result of a recession out of his control while ignoring any positives of his the economic recovery during his administration. Many of your broad statements were demonstrably false.
I'm sure you'd like to ignore the 700,000 plus public sector jobs lost over 8 years. I, on the other hand, am not so inclined. What would the previous figures look like if there was similar public sector job GROWTH during the Obama years as there was for every president before him since at least Carter? How much stronger could the recovery potentially have been?
In most instances the propaganda machine doesn't want the scapegoated population to disappear: if they did there'd be no one to blame. Emmanuel Goldstein wasn't even a real person, was he? To the contrary, the propagandist needs a victim: the Nazis came to power to negative the nefarious machinations of the dirty Jews. Only after the dictatorship was established did Jews become expendable.
The (an) interesting thing about today's two minutes of hate is that it attempts to marginalize a powerful class in the name of a coalition of allegedly powerless groups: tyranny by tranny if you will. The Jews in Weimar were already a marginalized segregated population. Those accused of witchcraft in Salem were outside the social mainstream. But 'old white men' are a well to do group well entrenched in the cultural fabric, even if they now comprise a statistical minority. They have money and property and power and lawyers on speed dial. It's strange situation.
Re demoralization, it's real and it happens. You saw it in pre election polling, where respondents evidently were loathe to admit their political proclivities. You saw it in the public sphere where those who supported Trump were regularly made to disavow outlandish beliefs held by some of his more er esoteric followers: every republican that came down the pike had to piss on David Duke - David Duke, a non entity whose greatest accomplishment was winning the democratic vice presidential primary in New Hampshire in 1988 - but democrats were not even asked about that, much less Obama supporter and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers or heaven forefend the mass murderer good old Joe Stalin who the NY Times lauded in Pulitzer Prize winning stories. Republicans in the arts - unless very rich and very famous - hide their political affiliations lest the find themselves black listed. Ditto conservatives in academia, to the extent that they exist. It even reaches the mundane: compare the media treatment of Curt Schilling, a hall of fame caliber pitcher, or Tim Tebow, an outspoken Christian who won the Heisman trophy, with the treatment of Michael Sam, a marginally talented college football who happens to prefer penis to vagina: the latter is so very brave and the former two are so very primitive.
In the big scheme of things it's not hard for an old white male in Hollywood to remain silent in the face of calumny against the right. But for a Jew in payots it was impossible to disavow his religion - even if he were inclined to. Imagine that you were accused of being in league with Satan in England in the 16th century. Were you to deny it you were entitled to trial by water - if you floated you burned at the stake and if you you drowned you died and went to heaven. Were you to admit your sin to save your life your reward was to in hell. In that situation there are no good answers and no bad questions. Which is why the best defense in politics is a good offense: "“pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Saul Alinksy, rule 13. It's not for nothing that that book was dedicated to Lucifer.
And there are some who are trying to figure out what a side looks like
Seriously though one way to cut through the morass is have a policy discussion based on what works and what does not, and what more needs to be done. Believe it or not data is widely available, and then it is a simpler idea of analyzing what policies do make sense by "looking backwards". One great comparison would be to compare President Obama and President Reagan in terms of economic, financial and social achievements.
For now let me just provide some salient findings on President Obama's economic policies - note I am using official statistics and I am not injecting my opinion:
Economic and Regulatory Policies of President Obama:
1. Raise taxes – across virtually every major federal tax. Moreover, raise tax rates on the top two income tax rates by nearly 20% (one deductions phase-out); raise capital gains tax rate; and enlist new taxes a la Obamacare taxes.
2. Federal spending – right off the bat we had an (highly underestimated meaning I trillion is a heavily under-reported number) $1 trillion stimulus bill, and we will not discuss the merits or demerits of this policy. Federal spending increased by 28% in 2012, and was projected to rise to 57% by 2021.
3. Expand monetary policy by lowering the cost to borrow money and thus lower the value of money.
4. Across-the-board higher regulations, from health care to finance to energy, environment and elsewhere.
The results:
1. Federal debt – started at $9.99 trillion at the end of the financial year 2008 (the US financial year runs to September 30) to $19.95 trillion at the end of 2016 (www.usgovernmentspending.com). Simple arithmetic suggests that more than $1.2 trillion per annum was added in debt over this 8 year period. Fun fact: the $9.96 trillion increase over this 8 year period is just slightly less than the $9.99 trillion debt that the country accumulated in 219 years. Holy moly.
2. Economic growth –not one single year did GDP reach or went over 3%. Some analyst argue it was the biggest recession since the (crusades) great depression, and that it was all Bush younger’s handling of the economy that led to the situation President Obama inherited. Nevertheless, the last time that real GDP (not nominal GDP) grew by 3% or more was in 2005 under Bush the younger. That means 11 years without growth going over 3% (a bench mark of success). Just to shed some comparison not only with smaller government economic policies but also bigger government (but not massive ones like President Obama) economic policies but of course recognizing different contexts – JFK 6.1% GDP growth in 1962; Carter 5.6% in 1978, Bush younger 3.8% in 2004 and I am not going to mention Reagan’s highest figure and the year.
3. Jobs creation - 7.6% unemployment rate in January 2009 went down to 4.9% in October 2016. Looks groovy right? Well these are my alt-facts, so the number of people employed went up by almost 10 million people and number of unemployed went down by almost 4 million (I padded these numbers up not down), but citizens NOT in the labor force went up by 13.5 million, while the civilian non-institutional population (meaning the dudes who are not in prison or institutionalized elsewhere) went up by 19.8 million. Are you seeing a pattern here to refute applause??? Ok so you might ask what all this means? Because you cant talk about job creation without talking about labour force participation and also dis-aggregating public from private jobs - I couldn't find the data on breakdown but my suspicion suggests with the amount of money the country was going into debt, Obama created and expanded public employment through federal funds.
4. Labor participation rate and for whom the bells toll – First, what the hell is it? The labor force participation rate is the percentage of people in the civilian noninstitutionalized population, age 16 or older, who are either working or actively seeking work. This indicator reflects people’s decisions about the incentives of working or looking for work compared with doing something else such as attending school, caring for family members, or retiring, or in my case just musings. In short the higher the % point the more people are working. Anyhow the rate went from 65.8% in February 2009 ([URL][URL]http://www.tradingeconomics.com/[/URL][/URL]) to 62.8% in October 2016 ([URL][URL]https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm[/URL][/URL]). To shed some light on the quantum of all this, 94.33 million Americans were not in the labor force in July 2016, which is an improvement from June 2016’s 94.52 million; and the labor force participation rate improved slightly, increasing a tenth of a point to 62.8 percent from June’s 62.7 percent (Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics). More fun facts: In September 2015, the labor force participation rate dropped to 62.4 percent, its lowest point ever since 1977. The best it’s been since Barack Obama took office is 65.8 percent in February 2009, the month after Obama was sworn in amid a recession.
5. How about money? Median household annual income: Well let’s start with saying that the median household annual income (that is the average across all the household) has remained stagnant in real terms under Obama. So in January 2009, median household income, in nominal terms, was slightly above $50,000. According to Sentier Research, median household annual income in September, 2016, the most recent period for which data is available, was $57,616. Hey that looks good, no? Let’s us look deeper, so when we adjusted for the Consumer Price Index, real seasonally adjusted median household income (in September 2016 dollars) was about $57,500 in January 2009, virtually the same as it is almost eight years later. Or put in another way, “in real dollar terms, the median annual income is 1.5% lower (-$884) than its interim high in January 2008 but well off its low in August 2011.
Now if you're interested in comparing the same indicators for President Reagan - the baseline and final Figures in 1989, and recall the situation the Reagan inherited and when you look at the baseline for 1981 you will see in many ways it was worse than what Obama inherited. Look at jobs, real growth rate average, inflation rate, median incomes, and other indicators of interest. Now simply compare across both Presidents and make your own conclusions.
The point of all this is that we can more systematically choose policies and regulations and laws by looking the performance on them, rather than the rhetoric and the politics.
EZ.....I appreciate your intent to provoke an apolitical policy debate, but I would make the case that it is much more complicated than "looking backwards" to determine what works. There are just too many variables. There are also different methods to measure and assess the same economic indicators (i.e. employment, debt, home ownership, etc). Also, depending on where you stand, there are different perspectives and standards on what should be deemed "successful".
For example, statistics can show that Bill Clinton effectively erased the national debt and ran a surplus through the end of his second term. However, as soon as I submit this post, someone will quickly point to some unique and extenuating factors that reach beyond any brilliant policy (i.e. George HW Bush set the table for him, or Social security ran at a surplus pre-boomer retirements, or the Dot-com bubble generated a windfall in capital gains and income tax). By the same token, I cannot understand why Ronald Reagan seemingly gets a pass for exponentially growing the debt during his two terms.
Statistics don't lie, but one can usually twist and interpret their statements to suit a desired narrative. This is especially prevalent when it comes to god forsaken politics!
There seems to be two things you are implying, and so for my own clarification: one is that the scale, size and inter-connectivity of the global economy say that of 1981 to that of 2009, correct? 2) And if it much more globalized are you saying that the contexts are so different that it would be hard to compare? 3) And that the policy options are more limited in 2009?
The second is that I am painting Obama in a negative light in terms of just looking at his record, and in terms of looking across his record?
And there are some who are trying to figure out what a side looks like
Seriously though one way to cut through the morass is have a policy discussion based on what works and what does not, and what more needs to be done. Believe it or not data is widely available, and then it is a simpler idea of analyzing what policies do make sense by "looking backwards". One great comparison would be to compare President Obama and President Reagan in terms of economic, financial and social achievements.
For now let me just provide some salient findings on President Obama's economic policies - note I am using official statistics and I am not injecting my opinion:
Economic and Regulatory Policies of President Obama:
1. Raise taxes – across virtually every major federal tax. Moreover, raise tax rates on the top two income tax rates by nearly 20% (one deductions phase-out); raise capital gains tax rate; and enlist new taxes a la Obamacare taxes.
2. Federal spending – right off the bat we had an (highly underestimated meaning I trillion is a heavily under-reported number) $1 trillion stimulus bill, and we will not discuss the merits or demerits of this policy. Federal spending increased by 28% in 2012, and was projected to rise to 57% by 2021.
3. Expand monetary policy by lowering the cost to borrow money and thus lower the value of money.
4. Across-the-board higher regulations, from health care to finance to energy, environment and elsewhere.
The results:
1. Federal debt – started at $9.99 trillion at the end of the financial year 2008 (the US financial year runs to September 30) to $19.95 trillion at the end of 2016 (www.usgovernmentspending.com). Simple arithmetic suggests that more than $1.2 trillion per annum was added in debt over this 8 year period. Fun fact: the $9.96 trillion increase over this 8 year period is just slightly less than the $9.99 trillion debt that the country accumulated in 219 years. Holy moly.
2. Economic growth –not one single year did GDP reach or went over 3%. Some analyst argue it was the biggest recession since the (crusades) great depression, and that it was all Bush younger’s handling of the economy that led to the situation President Obama inherited. Nevertheless, the last time that real GDP (not nominal GDP) grew by 3% or more was in 2005 under Bush the younger. That means 11 years without growth going over 3% (a bench mark of success). Just to shed some comparison not only with smaller government economic policies but also bigger government (but not massive ones like President Obama) economic policies but of course recognizing different contexts – JFK 6.1% GDP growth in 1962; Carter 5.6% in 1978, Bush younger 3.8% in 2004 and I am not going to mention Reagan’s highest figure and the year.
3. Jobs creation - 7.6% unemployment rate in January 2009 went down to 4.9% in October 2016. Looks groovy right? Well these are my alt-facts, so the number of people employed went up by almost 10 million people and number of unemployed went down by almost 4 million (I padded these numbers up not down), but citizens NOT in the labor force went up by 13.5 million, while the civilian non-institutional population (meaning the dudes who are not in prison or institutionalized elsewhere) went up by 19.8 million. Are you seeing a pattern here to refute applause??? Ok so you might ask what all this means? Because you cant talk about job creation without talking about labour force participation and also dis-aggregating public from private jobs - I couldn't find the data on breakdown but my suspicion suggests with the amount of money the country was going into debt, Obama created and expanded public employment through federal funds.
4. Labor participation rate and for whom the bells toll – First, what the hell is it? The labor force participation rate is the percentage of people in the civilian noninstitutionalized population, age 16 or older, who are either working or actively seeking work. This indicator reflects people’s decisions about the incentives of working or looking for work compared with doing something else such as attending school, caring for family members, or retiring, or in my case just musings. In short the higher the % point the more people are working. Anyhow the rate went from 65.8% in February 2009 ([URL][URL]http://www.tradingeconomics.com/[/URL][/URL]) to 62.8% in October 2016 ([URL][URL]https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm[/URL][/URL]). To shed some light on the quantum of all this, 94.33 million Americans were not in the labor force in July 2016, which is an improvement from June 2016’s 94.52 million; and the labor force participation rate improved slightly, increasing a tenth of a point to 62.8 percent from June’s 62.7 percent (Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics). More fun facts: In September 2015, the labor force participation rate dropped to 62.4 percent, its lowest point ever since 1977. The best it’s been since Barack Obama took office is 65.8 percent in February 2009, the month after Obama was sworn in amid a recession.
5. How about money? Median household annual income: Well let’s start with saying that the median household annual income (that is the average across all the household) has remained stagnant in real terms under Obama. So in January 2009, median household income, in nominal terms, was slightly above $50,000. According to Sentier Research, median household annual income in September, 2016, the most recent period for which data is available, was $57,616. Hey that looks good, no? Let’s us look deeper, so when we adjusted for the Consumer Price Index, real seasonally adjusted median household income (in September 2016 dollars) was about $57,500 in January 2009, virtually the same as it is almost eight years later. Or put in another way, “in real dollar terms, the median annual income is 1.5% lower (-$884) than its interim high in January 2008 but well off its low in August 2011.
Now if you're interested in comparing the same indicators for President Reagan - the baseline and final Figures in 1989, and recall the situation the Reagan inherited and when you look at the baseline for 1981 you will see in many ways it was worse than what Obama inherited. Look at jobs, real growth rate average, inflation rate, median incomes, and other indicators of interest. Now simply compare across both Presidents and make your own conclusions.
The point of all this is that we can more systematically choose policies and regulations and laws by looking the performance on them, rather than the rhetoric and the politics.
EZ.....I appreciate your intent to provoke an apolitical policy debate, but I would make the case that it is much more complicated than "looking backwards" to determine what works. There are just too many variables. There are also different methods to measure and assess the same economic indicators (i.e. employment, debt, home ownership, etc). Also, depending on where you stand, there are different perspectives and standards on what should be deemed "successful".
For example, statistics can show that Bill Clinton effectively erased the national debt and ran a surplus through the end of his second term. However, as soon as I submit this post, someone will quickly point to some unique and extenuating factors that reach beyond any brilliant policy (i.e. George HW Bush set the table for him, or Social security ran at a surplus pre-boomer retirements, or the Dot-com bubble generated a windfall in capital gains and income tax). By the same token, I cannot understand why Ronald Reagan seemingly gets a pass for exponentially growing the debt during his two terms.
Statistics don't lie, but one can usually twist and interpret their statements to suit a desired narrative. This is especially prevalent when it comes to god forsaken politics!
All what you are saying is true. But at least lets move out of simply ideological arguments and into the potential - because it is harder to measure the future than see what actually happened in the past, and that can be linked up to policy much more easily and other policies that impacted and random things that impacted on say growth. We can tease those out better because we went backwards for clues. But happy to read your insights. Quite honestly I am very impressed with the thinking so far, especially in pointing out nuances that people with good understanding of statistics and economics would have.
The scapegoats are always needed, and as you rightly point out Emmanuel Goldstein did not even exist. The Manifesto - O'Brien Admitted - was largely written by him, and it is brilliant in weeding out any idiot who thought they had a remote chance of even thinking. So hence the scapegoat does not even have to be real.
What niggles at me is a riotous turn around on "white" working america, and I know that this might be out of the ordinary but the propaganda machine with fake nooses, swastikas, social media trolls, hijabs etc, are literally tightening the "noose" on these people, and I fear the combination of Trump hate, conservative, white male hate, a propaganda machine (more pervasive than even the Nazi which produced the likes of Eichmann) just does not sit right with me ... I am predicting a Nazi Germany collecting up but some serious upheaval.
In Islam and Judaism it is impossible to disavow religion. But I do not know about this specific aspect that appears in Islam , and the statement goes something like this (spoken in the context of what is looking like a sure suicidal decision for a person with suicide being the most heinous act in Islam - yes the part the Jihadist overlooked), "that if in the worst case scenario, you have to shake hands with the devil to survive in the immediate sense than the better thing to do is survive." ... but there are many different potential scenarios possible ...
Its acts like these and journalism like this that to me are fomenting deeper divisions. How do we know that the murderer is not someone neurotic or psychotic? What does the broader population think? Would this have happened regardless of who the president is ..and on and on ... and on
=.f5fe671bb0b7
=.f5fe671bb0b7
- Status