Doctor Fate wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:I much prefer B. Clinton to Obama, but the same principle is at work. I'm probably going to split my vote and vote for Obama for president and Republicans for Senate and the House which may both be in play in my state. Of course, this does depend on Romney's VP pick and the ideas put forth by both candidates. Since I tend to be indecisive, and I am an Independent, I might be the best bell weather that you all have for this election.

What gives you the sense that President Obama will moderate as Clinton did?

How did he moderate after the 2010 "shellacking?"

If Reid is Majority Leader, what makes you think spending will do anything but increase--at more than a trillion a year in red ink?

In the order of your questions:

He has to moderate to get stuff past the House.
He didn't, except the House is preventing additional stimulus.
I don't have confidence in that; I also don't have confidence that Romney will control deficits either.

Ray Jay wrote:In the order of your questions:

He has to moderate to get stuff past the House.
He didn't, except the House is preventing additional stimulus.
I don't have confidence in that; I also don't have confidence that Romney will control deficits either.

Thank you.

He hasn't and he won't. His presumption is he is right and others should acquiesce. In his most famous negotiation, "The Grand Bargain," I think it's pretty clear he made demands that Boehner could not survive--and he knew that.

The House is preventing additional stimulus because they think the deficit is a problem and the first Abomulus was poorly administered/planned. I was all for giving it to him so it could be demonstrated to not work and he would have no more excuses. Of course, that is wishful thinking.

Here's the difference: President Obama has not only demonstrated he doesn't care, his last two budgets have shown he doesn't even want the restraint of a budget. He is intentionally putting up laughable budgets. How else can anyone explain zero Democrats voting for them?

Would it change your mind if President Obama was demonstrated to be a socialist in the mid to late 1990's?

Would you please explain your optimism that someone who has been a rigid ideologue will become a moderate if he gains a second term? He's done nothing that would indicate that since 2010 and his campaign is not aimed toward moderate voters, so I don't get it.

Oh, I'm not saying he will be a moderate in terms of his world view. I also don't think he is a radical -- I just think he is about on the 30 yard line. Obama is on the reasonable American political spectrum and not a communist, socialist, or anarchist. He just doesn't really get capitalism and the weakness of Keynesian-ism. He doesn't understand the weakness of excess government spending.I see him as an economic liberal and a foreign policy moderate.

My point is that we will have a Republican House and more or less a 50/50 Senate. They will have to negotiate with each other. Taxes will go up some; spending will go down some. In Obama's 2nd term, I just don't see any motivation for most members of both parties to not work with each other.

By the way, I wouldn't be upset if Romney wins. It might work out. Perhaps he can pull off a Reagan style recovery without getting us caught up in another war. Perhaps he can judiciously sort out our growing public sector spending and our long term structural problems. But there are some negative scenarios as well. Romney tax cuts create bigger budget deficits. He doesn't trim social spending enough to accommodate the increase in military spending. Or he gets us involved in another war that we cannot afford. There's any number of hot spots (some we now know about and some will erupt in 2014 or so) where jingoistic conservative rhetoric can get us into trouble. Now that we have some perspective, isn't that the headline of the GWB years?

Ray Jay wrote:Perhaps he can pull off a Reagan style recovery without getting us caught up in another war. Perhaps he can judiciously sort out our growing public sector spending and our long term structural problems. But there are some negative scenarios as well. Romney tax cuts create bigger budget deficits. He doesn't trim social spending enough to accommodate the increase in military spending. Or he gets us involved in another war that we cannot afford. There's any number of hot spots (some we now know about and some will erupt in 2014 or so) where jingoistic conservative rhetoric can get us into trouble. Now that we have some perspective, isn't that the headline of the GWB years?

I really think you are missing a few things.

1. GWB did not choose Afghanistan. Iraq was debatable (at best), but could not have happened were it not for 9/11 (Congress would not have approved anything without 9/11 and would not refuse anything in light of 9/11).

2. Romney is a businessman. He understands trimming excess. He understands we are overextended as it is.

3. Any tax cuts will be in conjunction with simplification. All the money on the sideline might well come back into play if people: 1) believe they can make a profit; 2) see a relaxation of the tiresome regulations of this Administration.

4. Obama was a socialist. Whether he remains one or not, I do not know. However, less than 15 years ago, he was.

5. I think there is a pent-up desire to expand that has been choked out by Lisa Jackson and other over-zealous Obama appointees. If he stays in office, he will continue to drive energy prices up, thus stifling the economy. That's one promise he kept.

real quick and then back to work for me

I think you are right on 2 and 3. I don't see 4 as relevant. Re #5 keep in mind that natural gas is so cheap that the US will enjoy low energy prices for years to come; trucks will convert to natural gas; coal will come off line but be easily replaced. US manufacturing will come back in many energy intensive industries. I agree that Romney would accelerate that process. We do have to find a balance so that we have safe water, safe food, safe air, and safe oceans. I'd have to spend years of research to feel comfortable that I know where the right balance is, but let's err on the side of safe. I am mindful that we should do more drilling in Alaska and offshore, I just don't know how much more drilling and under what preconditions.

Re #1, you never know where the hotspot will be, and how the CIC will respond. Reagan did not choose to double down in Lebanon. Clinton was over-cautious, but ultimately he got it right in Serbia. GHWB was right to stop at liberating Kuwait. GWB made the wrong call. I think you are right that Iraq was debatable which is essentially the point. There will be a future conflict that is debatable, and we don't know where it will be, but there are many possibilities. I think that Obama has shown wisdom in Libya, and is erring on the side of caution in Syria. That's priceless.

Ray Jay wrote:real quick and then back to work for me

I think you are right on 2 and 3. I don't see 4 as relevant.

Four is only relevant if he is an ideologue, which I believe he is. What substantive push for negotiations with the Republicans has he made? He's been more willing to negotiate with Iran than with Boehner (maybe a bit of hyperbole, but not far off the mark).

Re #5 keep in mind that natural gas is so cheap that the US will enjoy low energy prices for years to come; trucks will convert to natural gas; coal will come off line but be easily replaced.

Easily replaced? How many coal-fired energy plants do we have? How many jobs will be lost?

Re #1, you never know where the hotspot will be, and how the CIC will respond. Reagan did not choose to double down in Lebanon. Clinton was over-cautious, but ultimately he got it right in Serbia. GHWB was right to stop at liberating Kuwait. GWB made the wrong call. I think you are right that Iraq was debatable which is essentially the point.

I think the real error is "nation-building" or the "Powell Doctrine." Even if Iraq was the right war, if the neocon nonsense was removed, we would have flattened the place and left. That's what should have happened.

There will be a future conflict that is debatable, and we don't know where it will be, but there are many possibilities. I think that Obama has shown wisdom in Libya, and is erring on the side of caution in Syria. That's priceless.

I just don't agree. He was led in Libya. The seeds of the "Arab spring" are just beginning to break ground. I may not give him enough credit in international relations, but I think you grant him entirely too much.

I laughed when I read the title of this thread, and yawned when I got to the punchline (from the article, bold added for emphasis):

federal spending is rising at its slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end...

Federal spending "slowing" would indicate that the rate of spending, in dollars per year, was dropping. It's obviously not. It isn't going to. Neither party is even seriously suggesting "slowing spending".

theodorelogan wrote:I laughed when I read the title of this thread, and yawned when I got to the punchline (from the article, bold added for emphasis):

federal spending is rising at its slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end...

Federal spending "slowing" would indicate that the rate of spending, in dollars per year, was dropping. It's obviously not. It isn't going to. Neither party is even seriously suggesting "slowing spending".

The recent vote on sugar subsidies supports your view. Several Republicans joined the Democrats to ensure that the subsidies stay in place. Even Tea Party darling Marco Rubio did so, putting the interests of large corporations in his state ahead of his country.

Theodorelogan - it could also be said to be slowing if the real terms per capita spending is lower. Only looking at absolute dollars ignores inflation and population increase, both of which will mean spending more dollars to do the same thing year on year.

Of course inflation and population increases also tend to increase the tax take, absent other changes. when budgeting, these things should be taken into account, that's what happens in the companies I worked for and with, so why is it some seem to think it should be handwaved away for public spending?

Government spending is outpacing population growth also.

Yes, inflation is a factor but that isn't the point. The point is that regular people are adopting the doublespeak (a decrease in the rate of increase is called a spending cut, or increasing spending by less than originally projected is called slowing spending) that was reserved for politicians. I'm sure that you can find some way to massage the data to show that spending has decreased. So if you want to say that the increase in per-capita discretionary inflation-adjusted seasonally adjusted spending is lower than last year, then say that. Calling that a spending cut is a deliberate attempt to mislead.

Keep in mind that it is both parties who are guilty of this. It's not like they can debat about whether federal spending should be increased by 4.6% or 4.8%. That would make way to obvious the lack of difference between the fiscal policies of the two parties. The real difference is which special interest groups get on the federal gravy train.