The GOPs Best Hope in 2012

[Erik]

One Jay is either a practical joker or completely out of touch with reality.

He's just trolling again. And got some bait.

[senorsheep]

Oh please. That's like saying Aaron Hill is a better hitter than Pujols by only comparing Hill's AB's against Chan Ho Park and Puljols when he hits against Halladay. The economy and the situation faced by Clinton and Bush were far different that the one Obama took over. And I won't even get into Bush doing so well because he corked his bat.

Hmmm, yes, the situation Obama took over is probably more comparable to Reagan's. Compare away!





Edit to add: For the record, I have no interest in reading such a comparison, so please skip it. It was a joke. Thankyaverymuch.

[chancellor]

Oh please. That's like saying Aaron Hill is a better hitter than Pujols by only comparing Hill's AB's against Chan Ho Park and Puljols when he hits against Halladay. The economy and the situation faced by Clinton and Bush were far different that the one Obama took over. And I won't even get into Bush doing so well because he corked his bat.

Hmmm...not really. The Clinton administration recognized far earlier and did far more relative to regulatory reduction than the Obama administration did. The Bush administration recognized serious threats to two heavy industries due to dumping and provided vast protection to one (steel) and lesser protection to the second (wood products and paper). The Obama administration answer to serious threats to a heavy industry was to, in essence, nationalize it, addressing very little of the root cause of the issue.

Now, if you're talking absolute numbers, then the Reagan administration and the Obama administration are probably better direct comparisons. And it took the Reagan administration only a touch over two years and a full order of magnitude less in deficit spending.

[onejayhawk]

He's just trolling again. And got some bait.

I think Clinton was a good president and maybe better than Obama will turn out to be. But it's an unfair comparison to compare the problems Clinton faced with the ones Obama faced, which was a massive economic melt down, literally of historical proportions.

And to compare the economic situation when Bush took over to the one that faced Obama when he took over is ludicrous. Hell, didn't Bush start with a surplus or close to it? His wars, tax reductions and lax business regulation put this country in the toilet. And that's what Obama started with, which was a far worse situation than either Clinton or Bush started with.

It is an unfair comparison, again, comparing what one batter does against an average college pitcher to one facing Randy Johnson in his prime.

We could deal with facts:

Bush was hit with deficits right out of the box, partly due to a recession, and partly due to the massive drop in capital gains revenue. The dot com bust caused a huge acceleration of capital gains tax revenue, which paid for the the Clinton balanced budget years. By 2nd quarter 2001 that windfall was gone, leaving an unusually bare revenue tree.

While the War in Iraq was expensive, it was less per year than the so called Stimulous Bill. The increase in Military spending, compared to the Clinton years, was never more than about 1/4 of last year's deficit. It has increased almost as much since Obama took office.

The deficit in both 2009 and 2010 was bigger than all eight of Bush's deficits combined. A fair part of that was decrease in tax revenue due to the economy. However, the majority is through increased spending. This was at a time when revenues were tanking. 2011 will look much better due to the capital gains from the recent sell off.

The Bush tax cuts were made before the economy hit bottom. Then the economy improved. While this is not proof that the cuts fueled the recovery, it is solid evidence that they did not hinder it.

Then there is analysis.

I believe President Obama did get a worse economy. There is solid grounds to claim so, but there are also solid grounds for comparison. Even the timing is somewhat parallel. Bush entered office during the downslide to a recession, which began the quarter after IIRC. Obama took office about 4-6 months further along.

I do not like to blame or credit Presidents with their economic situation. To a large extent they have no real control. Even the biggest pushes tend to have temporary effect, if any at all. Psycology has a larger effect. However, the economy has little impact on spending. With a known economic situation, the BOA has chosen to sharply increase spending, at a time when revenue plunged. We have seen the pattern well into his third year. He had to be forced, almost literally at gunpoint, to make any corrective action.

I am not saying that this administration is the worst since Grover Cleveland. I am saying it is the worst since Jimmy Carter. The handling of the county's finces is only a large part of it. His foreign policy has been every bit as poor as many feared prior to the election.

J

[Wonderboy]

I am not saying that this administration is the worst since Grover Cleveland. I am saying it is the worst since Jimmy Carter. The handling of the county's finces is only a large part of it. His foreign policy has been every bit as poor as many feared prior to the election.

J

I don't agree with much (or any) of what you posted here, but I think it was an honest attempt to be even-handed and less partisan than usual. So credit where credit is due.

[onejayhawk]

I don't agree with much (or any) of what you posted here, but I think it was an honest attempt to be even-handed and less partisan than usual. So credit where credit is due.

I appreciate the thought.

However, it is not unusually evenhanded or less partisan. More detailed, perhaps. It is born of irritation at Erik and the accusation of trolling.

BTW, Sheep is right. Obama's situation is very comparable with Reagan's. In 1983 we were seeing a recovery, not wondering whether the bottom had come yet.

J

[DMT]

His foreign policy has been every bit as poor as many feared prior to the election.

Now this is interesting because I have been totally dissatisfied with his foreign policy as well, but I'm pretty sure we're about as far apart in our beliefs in that area as can be. But maybe I'm wrong. Care to elaborate?

[onejayhawk]

I can give an example from the fighting in Egypt last spring. State, via Hilary, said one thing, the White House corrected, and then the President took a third position in a press conference. Obama managed to offend everyone: both Mubarak's supporters and the crowds in the streets. Noted right wing extremist publication Newsweek, called it a debacle.

It was typical of the entire North African situation, and the broader picture as well. Generally the White House and State Department might as well be from different countries. One problem seems to be that the White House is driven by expediency, and State is taking a longer view. There is no consistency, no clarity and entirely to much waffling and some outright contradicting.

J

[DMT]

I can give an example from the fighting in Egypt last spring. State, via Hilary, said one thing, the White House corrected, and then the President took a third position in a press conference. Obama managed to offend everyone: both Mubarak's supporters and the crowds in the streets. Noted right wing extremist publication Newsweek, called it a debacle.

It was typical of the entire North African situation, and the broader picture as well. Generally the White House and State Department might as well be from different countries. One problem seems to be that the White House is driven by expediency, and State is taking a longer view. There is no consistency, no clarity and entirely to much waffling and some outright contradicting.

J

With Hillary running the State Department, wasn't that kind of expected though? I felt from the get-go that Obama pretty much handed off foreign policy to Hillary because she was more hawkish and Obama wanted to focus on his domestic agenda since FP has taken a back seat in the public's mind.

[onejayhawk]

Hilary in charge of State was the deal with the devil, I grant you. However, this is far from the first such payoff in history. Usually it can be made to work better than it has. They dont even communicate before they talk to the press.

J

[nullnor]

He's out of his gourde!!.. lol

[nullnor]

ok ok

[nullnor]

call me broncho