The Official Obama Scorecard Thread

[dapokerbum 0]

I was in Portland last year and went to VooDoo Donuts. Had a maple bar with Bacon on it ... BEST DONUT EVER!

[BaseJester 1]

Cash for Clunkers was an example of "Increase now, sacrifice later." It artificially created an increased market now with the effect of reducing car purchases after the program ends. It's different than what I said above about the stimulus.If one million American cars suddenly and all at once broke down and their engines went on fire, cash for clunkers would be a very good deal: it would help America get back to it's automobile ownership equilibrium. There would be a void of cars and people would have a need to get around. While that void would naturally restore itself, it would do so faster if the government gave incentives. And since owning cars helps the GDP by allowing for transport to jobs and in other obvious ways, it would be a net benefit.But that was not the case. We were in essence at auto equilibrium throughout the recession, so cash for clunkers was essentially like hitting a spring hard to the right and then having it spring back hard to the left. It's oscillatory motion.

It's much less complicated than that. The nation held some wealth in the form of cars. We destroyed some of the wealth and then moved around some paper. Now there is less wealth.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

I was in Portland last year and went to VooDoo Donuts. Had a maple bar with Bacon on it ... BEST DONUT EVER!

Everyone should probably check out their menu.

[El Guapo 8]

Everyone should probably check out their menu.

I liked the gay bar. I wonder if the blunt doughnut sells well at night?

[Balloon guy 158]

Pretty much the craziest thing I have ever learned at church was the existence of this

[ShakeZuma 585]

Everyone should probably check out their menu.

sweet jesus

[custom36 5]

Pretty much the craziest thing I have ever learned at church was the existence of this

It sounds kinda disgusting, but I'll be damned if I don't really want to try it.

[85suited 0]

Looking forward to Obama Crediting The "Surge" tonight in his speech

[dapokerbum 0]

Everyone should probably check out their menu.

We tried:Bacon Maple Bar - Already told you BEST DONUT EVERPortland Cream - Not as good as expectedThe Loop - DeliciousTriple Chocolate Penetration - Too chocolatey for me, but the wife loved it

[custom36 5]

Looking forward to Obama Crediting The "Surge" tonight in his speech

He's forever screwed if he does. The opposition will drop the flip-flop moniker on him faster than they did John Kerry.

[85suited 0]

He's forever screwed if he does. The opposition will drop the flip-flop moniker on him faster than they did John Kerry.

I would respect the man if he said he was wrong and that we followed the right course... but that will never happen

[dapokerbum 0]

I would respect the man if he said he was wrong and that we followed the right course... but that will never happen

Respect ... or beat him up more because he was wrong.

[custom36 5]

Didn't Obama have noticeable gray hairs a few weeks ago? Is he darker tonight than he used to be?Maybe I'm just delusional...

[loogie 115]

I would respect the man if he said he was wrong and that we followed the right course... but that will never happen

Yeah, the entire Iraq War was a roaring success.

[hblask 1]

The Stimulus bill, which I was talking about, didn't take money from the productive sector of today, which is the point I was making. I'm not sure what your rebuttal is rebutting.

It does take from the productive sector today. It may not directly tax them today, but it removes money from the capital market, and it causes investors to withhold investment dollars because of the inevitable future tax increase to pay it back. These combine to make the smaller pool of investment dollars left more expensive than they otherwise would be. But even if your theory worked that way, it still just moves demand forward by a little. Remember that graph in cash for clunkers? That would be a best case for the economy, and that is if there is no damage from the lack of capital.Any other guesses?

And I don't need to make a complete "theory" for several reasons. One, there is no such thing as a complete economic theory. One has never existed and one will never exist. There are models, and every model has errors. Some are more accurate than others.

I'm not asking for a complete theory, just how taking money from productivity to give to lobbyists can be a net positive. That's a very small portion to explain.

Besides, why do I need to make a theory when I can instead produce concrete evidence that taking money from the rich as a higher proportion can produce an economically strong country. See, for example: America, United States of, 1776 -> present.

So are you claiming that taxation levels were over 20% when the country was founded through, say, 1930? You may want to look into that a bit.

Besides, even if the government were digging holes and filling them in, that can still have an economic benefit. I know you'll disagree and say that it's part of your fundamental theory, but you'd be wrong. For example, the biggest turn around in American history came as a result of America paying a lot of people to build big machines to dig holes and fill them back in and then destroying those machines.

So why don't we have 100% taxation, and just pay people do to dig holes and fill them back in? That's not a rhetorical question, that's the heart of where economic growth comes from. Why wouldn't that work?I'm not sure what you are referring to when America got rich by wasting money. Perhaps you are referring to the Great Depression, the other time when we engaged in wasteful public spending on a grand scale. I suppose you are one of those who thinks that it's a coincidence that the longest downturn in history occurred at the same time as the biggest increase in govt spending (until now)? And that the same thing occurred in Japan during their lost decade? And that we are on the verge of it again? How many times does a minor downturn have to turn into a crisis after massive spending increases before the evidence is strong enough? How many bigger downturns have to recover quickly on their own?

[hblask 1]

If one million American cars suddenly and all at once broke down and their engines went on fire, cash for clunkers would be a very good deal: it would help America get back to it's automobile ownership equilibrium. There would be a void of cars and people would have a need to get around. While that void would naturally restore itself, it would do so faster if the government gave incentives. And since owning cars helps the GDP by allowing for transport to jobs and in other obvious ways, it would be a net benefit.

That money comes from somewhere -- production in things that people value more highly.Wealth comes when we all create the things people value most. By creating incentives to create things that people value less, we harm economic growth. That money spent on any kind of stimulus is money that harms the economy to the exact degree that it distorts production away from what otherwise would've occurred -- and sometimes, that includes saving.

[CaneBrain 95]

Yeah, the entire Iraq War was a roaring success.

4 years in we came up with a new strategy that allowed us to do a bit better even though our original objectives did not even exist.That's not a roaring success?

[Balloon guy 158]

4 years in we came up with a new strategy that allowed us to do a bit better even though our original objectives did not even exist.That's not a roaring success?

Tommy Franks talks about the original objectives in his book. He stated after the 1st year that the plan was to occupy for a while, until they could defend themselves with a government that we approved of.Looking back I might say that I wish we never went in, but at the time, it was the right thing to do. Much better to attract the terrorist all in one place where we have a bunch of guys with guns and tanks and Apache helicopters than letting them run amok in Manhattan.Having made the choice to go in, the end result was pretty much a complete success.Time will tell if it is a lasting success.Afghanistan will probably not end well. The rest of the world isn't kicking in enough to sustain the war without massive American help,and we are tired of being the world's policemen every day.I bet we pull out and that place folds in a matter of years. It will probably be a wasteland with no laws but tribal for decades to come. You know the UN won't be able to help at all.

[brvheart 1,757]

yorke: all you need to know is that mk is wrong about EVERYTHING(except for laura marling)

This entire post is 100% accurate. Laura Marling is incredible. I love her.

[akoff 0]

End of the day, cash for clunkers was just a way to waste money. The government ended up spending $3 billion to get people more in debt, causing used cars to come off the market and raising the prices on used cars. So the poor got shafted, the middle class got more in debt and the rich got subsidies.

well it was a prgram brought to you by democrats...it fits the MO

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Discussion of the Beck Rally:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/...eally-wants/?hpI guess it was more pleasant than I gave it credit for, Beck was restrained, and people seemed to enjoy it. I'll lay off my awkward anti-tea party rants for a while.I still don't think Beck is very bright and good for America, but whatevs.

[Balloon guy 158]

Discussion of the Beck Rally:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/...eally-wants/?hpI guess it was more pleasant than I gave it credit for, Beck was restrained, and people seemed to enjoy it. I'll lay off my awkward anti-tea party rants for a while.I still don't think Beck is very bright and good for America, but whatevs.

I probably agree with more of what Beck says than disagree, but I have only seen his show once, and have no interest in expanding that sample size.Kind of like Hannity, don't care if he's right, just care that I can't watch him.

[Balloon guy 158]

[hblask 1]

I still don't think Beck is very bright and good for America, but whatevs.

I think he's very bright, I don't know if he's good for America. He's definitely an entertainer/clown, but he admits that. My biggest objection to him is he thinks he's libertarian when really he's mostly neocon. Whenever small government ideas start to get popular, some statist takes the name of the latest movement and ruins it. So it's possible Beck is a leftist plot to discredit small government types.On the other hand, he's very good at what he does, which is over-the-top political rhetoric with a sense of humor.

[85suited 0]

I think he's very bright, I don't know if he's good for America. He's definitely an entertainer/clown, but he admits that. My biggest objection to him is he thinks he's libertarian when really he's mostly neocon. Whenever small government ideas start to get popular, some statist takes the name of the latest movement and ruins it. So it's possible Beck is a leftist plot to discredit small government types.On the other hand, he's very good at what he does, which is over-the-top political rhetoric with a sense of humor.

Whats your take Henry on Michele Bachman