Voters believe Bachmann would do most damage to economy as president

[TickTockMan]

Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry would do the most damage to the economy if elected president, voters believe, while Mitt Romney and Herman Cain would do the most to improve the economy, according to a poll released Monday.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/10/v...damage-to-economy-as-president/#ixzz1aVxhyXvU



Maybe there is some hope for America.

 

[jackoroe]

The funny thing is none of them could fuck things up as bad as the current occupant of the White House. He does, after all, now have a record he's going to have to run on.

 

[CowboyBob]

The funny thing is none of them could fuck things up as bad as the current occupant of the White House. He does, after all, now have a record he's going to have to run on.

No remarks about President Obama's predecessor? How was his record?

 

[TheFireGod]

If the US does something militarily in Iran (as some are whispering after the foiled terrorist plot) with our current tax rate, or lower (if the TEA [STRIKE]Party[/STRIKE] wing of the GOP candidate is POTUS), then yes the economy goes into the crapper.

 

[miketlow]

No remarks about President Obama's predecessor? How was his record?

Now you know some people have convenient amnesia.....

 

[Just_Believe18]

The funny thing is none of them could fuck things up as bad as the current occupant of the White House. He does, after all, now have a record he's going to have to run on.

Contrary to what you believe, the economy was in free fall when Obama took office. Thanks to the initial stimulus efforts, he saved us from another Great Depression. It's funny how short everyone's memories were, but our economy was in great jeopardy those first couple of months.

 

[jackoroe]

No remarks about President Obama's predecessor? How was his record?

It wasn't good, but he's not up for election. Obama is. That's an important difference.

 

[hotatlboi]

The funny thing is none of them could fuck things up as bad as the current occupant of the White House. He does, after all, now have a record he's going to have to run on.

Clearly you haven't been listening to many of Bachmann's comments, or you would know how false this is.

 

[jackoroe]

Contrary to what you believe, the economy was in free fall when Obama took office. Thanks to the initial stimulus efforts, he saved us from another Great Depression. It's funny how short everyone's memories were, but our economy was in great jeopardy those first couple of months.

"It could have been worse!" Now there's a campaign slogan!

I'm not quite sure what the basis for these folks believing Bachmann would do the most damage to the economy is. I haven't heard too much in terms of any economic plan from any of the republican heard, other than Cain.

If it's just based on the belief that's she's a dunce, OK I'll go along with that.

 

[bike10]

Ms. Bachmann will give us $2.00 gas, cure all gays as screw the economy.

 

[hotatlboi]

I'm not quite sure what the basis for these folks believing Bachmann would do the most damage to the economy is.

Then like I said, you obviously haven't been listening to her very much.

She proposed earlier this year (and continued to repeat) that we should immediately cut 43% of all federal spending.

She seriously proposed immediately cutting off 10-15% of the cash going into the economy overnight, an action which would devastate the unstable recovery that is occurring at present.

Bachmann is an idiot when it comes to the economy, and anyone who thinks she isn't is either deaf or stupid.

 

[jackoroe]

She seriously proposed immediately cutting off 10-15% of the cash going into the economy overnight, an action which would devastate the unstable recovery that is occurring at present.

See, this is the premise that libs work from that screws their thinking up. This assumption is that reducing spending takes money out of the economy. That's patently false.

Where does government get it's money? It takes it out of the economy. So, if we reduce spending, more money will be left in the economy. Her premise is correct. I doubt that she's bothered to flesh it out to any kind of workable plan. You are correct, I haven't spent much time listening to her. Nor have too many other people, apparently.

 

[evanrick]

It wasn't good, but he's not up for election. Obama is. That's an important difference.

It wasnt that good? Katrina. 9-11. Iraq and Afghanistan. Economic collapse. It wasn't that good...how bad would it have to be to say it was a horrible tragedy of an administration?

History can be a stubborn thing, especially when the facts conflict with your version of it.

You believe Obama should suffer the same fate as Bush simply because you don't like him or his policies?

When Obama deserves BLAME for trying to help people as millions have been cast aside by reckless Republican ideas?

Is that fatalism or defeatism? What voter would support an ideology based on such-nearsightedness?

Someone help me understand and give America a break.

 

[jackoroe]

It wasnt that good? Katrina. 9-11. Iraq and Afghanistan. Economic collapse. It wasn't that good...how bad would it have to be to say it was a horrible tragedy of an administration?

History can be a stubborn thing, especially when the facts conflict with your version of it.

You believe Obama should suffer the same fate as Bush simply because you don't like him or his policies?

When Obama deserves BLAME for trying to help people as millions have been cast aside by reckless Republican ideas?

Is that fatalism or defeatism? What voter would support an ideology based on such-nearsightedness?

Someone help me understand and give America a break.

The operative phrase is "trying". This isn't the Special Olympics where we reward everyone for trying. This is the United States of America we're talking about. He's "tried" and failed. Make the argument that it could have been worse if you like. Blame it all on Bush three years into Obama's term if you like. Neither argument is going to provide much solace to the American worker who has been out of a job and average of some 40.5 weeks now. That's the highest it's been in 60 years.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/average-length-unemployment-now-60-high-161206191.html
Nor is it going to be of comfort to the 1 million people who lost their homes last year. Or the even higher number who will lose their homes this year.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4105141...n-homes-last-year-will-be-worse/#.TpWY8qN5mSM

People deserve rewards for succeeding, not trying. Politicians get rewarded with second terms because they get the job done. Unemployment remains at over 9%, despite Obama having pissed away trillions that we don't have. The housing market is not in a recession, but a depression. Fact is, not much good is happening and you cannot deny that. Biden has actually acted like a grown up and said that Obama owns this economy. I agree with you. America needs a break. A break from a disastrous three years of an absolutely incompetent administration who promised change.

Well we've changed alright. We've gone from bad to worse. Obama has even admitted it. We aren't better off than before he took office.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/10/04/obama-one-term/

He's also smart enough to admit in that article, that if he doesn't fix things in three years, he's going to be a one term president.

So, had the article cited by the OP included Obama, it's pretty clear that he'd be likely to win the person who actually has done the most damage to the economy and would remain the biggest threat to economic growth through his own gross incompetence.

 

[CowboyBob]

It wasn't good, but he's not up for election. Obama is. That's an important difference.

No Jack, all you said was "none of them could fuck things up as bad as the current occupant of the White House". You didn't mention anyone running for office was part of the equation.

The fact is republican Bush and his cronies fucked things up like no other President did since Hoover and Obama was sent in to clean up his mess. Bush had 8 years to do the damage he did and everyone is complaining it's wasn't fixed in the first two weeks of Obama's administration. He's 3 years in and is getting ZERO help from republicans. Actually, the republicans are sabotaging everything Obama is trying to do which is making matters even worse.

It's going to take a couple of decades to dig us out of this hole we're in and giving tax breaks to billionaires isn't going to do it. Electing another republican President is only going to put us deeper in the hole with their union busting, deregulation, corporate welfare, and demagoguery against different groups of people (immigrants, Muslims, gays, etc). That's pitting Americans against Americans.

 

[hotatlboi]

See, this is the premise that libs work from that screws their thinking up. This assumption is that reducing spending takes money out of the economy. That's patently false.

No it's not. And this shows how little you and a lot conservatives know what they are talking about.

Government spending makes up 30-35% of the economy. Reducing it by 43% is a reduction of 10-15% of total economic output.

Where does government get it's money? It takes it out of the economy.

Nope. You seem to be assuming that all the money government spends comes from taxes, which is wrong. The spending that would be eliminated by Bachmann's suggestion is that raised through bond sales (by not raising the debt ceiling). Most of that money is parked in banks or is coming from foreign investors and would NOT have otherwise been spent in the economy. What you are saying is that rather than investing in treasury bonds 100% of that money would instead have been spent on goods or services in the US economy. That is so patently absurd that it's hard for me to understand how you seriously thought that. The source of money that would not be spent is people that want to invest, not to spend.

Conservatives have completely failed to understand that tax increases are not the only way to hurt the economy. Instantly reducing demand by greater than 10% would have a far more negative effect than a 3% tax increase on the wealthy for example.

 

[jackoroe]

No it's not. And this shows how little you and a lot conservatives know what they are talking about.

Government spending makes up 30-35% of the economy. Reducing it by 43% is a reduction of 10-15% of total economic output.



Nope. You seem to be assuming that all the money government spends comes from taxes, which is wrong. The spending that would be eliminated by Bachmann's suggestion is that raised through bond sales (by not raising the debt ceiling). Most of that money is parked in banks or is coming from foreign investors and would NOT have otherwise been spent in the economy. What you are saying is that rather than investing in treasury bonds 100% of that money would instead have been spent on goods or services in the US economy. That is so patently absurd that it's hard for me to understand how you seriously thought that. The source of money that would not be spent is people that want to invest, not to spend.

Conservatives have completely failed to understand that tax increases are not the only way to hurt the economy. Instantly reducing demand by greater than 10% would have a far more negative effect than a 3% tax increase on the wealthy for example.

Let me give you an economics lesson. Government gets it's money from only four sources. Taxes, debt, fines and inflation.

You've chosen to ignore the fact that we collect $2,000,000,000,000 in taxes on an annual basis. Unfortuneately we spend about $3,500,000,000,000 per year.These taxes represent money confiscated from private individuals and business. That money is no longer available for them to invest, save or spend. It has been taken out of a sector which actually produces wealth and given to a sector that does not. In fact the government on it's best day, only redistributes wealth.

Now your argument is that we can somehow borrow our way to prosperity. Bond sales are nothing more than borrowing money. Short term, you can appear to be prosperous. It's fine to do to finance a war, or to jump-start the economy under certain circumstances. But you cannot allow debt to accumulate and never pay it off, as we're doing now. Worse, we're borrowing money just to finance interest. Think about the ruin that you would bring to your own life, if you were foolish enough to engage in this insane behavior. How's that working out for Greece, Italy, Spain and other EU members?

Adding to the debt isn't going to make us prosperous. Bachmann is right about that much.

The borrowing and spending orgy needs to stop

 

[hotatlboi]

Let me give you an economics lesson.

No Jack, you need the lesson, as I illustrated in my previous post. People like you and Bachmann have absolutely no clue on what your policies will do to the economy. You cannot cut GDP by 10% overnight and expect things not to collapse, especially with how fragile our recovery is at this point (basically flat).

You've chosen to ignore the fact that we collect $2,000,000,000,000 in taxes on an annual basis. Unfortuneately we spend about $3,500,000,000,000 per year.

Haven't ignored that at all. That was not the point of discussion. The point was why Bachmann would harm the economy, and the reason is because she (and apparently you) think it's feasible to cut 43% of government spending (> 10% of GDP) overnight.

Now your argument is that we can somehow borrow our way to prosperity.

Once again, you are deflecting to make an argument about NOTHING that I said. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Our long term deficit picture is not good, and NO we cannot continue borrowing at the current rate, that is obvious.

We ALSO cannot cut 43% of government spending overnight and expect the economy not to collapse. This is not hard to understand if you engage your brain.

Adding to the debt isn't going to make us prosperous. Bachmann is right about that much.

No she is not. She thinks stopping all borrowing overnight and collapsing the economy will help. It will not. That will reduce tax revenue even further and deepen the hole.

The recovery has to be managed to a point where we can pull back on borrowing over time to eliminate the deficit while maintaining growth (and hopefully adding greater growth). That is the only way out of this.

The borrowing and spending orgy needs to stop

Long term yes. Not overnight. That will do more harm than good. Again, not that hard to understand.

 

[maxpowr9]

@Jackaroe

I'm at least glad to know to never ask you for financial advice (though I never would anyways as a quasi-financial planner). You LOSE money from inflation, not gain it. There's a reason why a dollar today is worth more than a dollar "tomorrow".

 

[hotatlboi]

@Jackaroe

I'm at least glad to know to never ask you for financial advice (though I never would anyways as a quasi-financial planner). You LOSE money from inflation, not gain it. There's a reason why a dollar today is worth more than a dollar "tomorrow".

Well, here I assume he is referring to inflation as it relates to the debt. Inflation can help with reducing debts, because the dollar value of your debt (the principal) does not change but if the money supply inflates, then the inflation-adjusted amount you have to pay back on the debt is less in real world terms.

Example: say you had a car note from 1970 at $2000, if you could have delayed paying that debt off until today (paying just the interest), it would be much easier to pay $2000 today than it would have been in 1970.

Of course the rub with this is that if you added up the interest paid the amount would be absurd, but sometimes you have to do that if you cannot realistically pay the debt back in the near term, as is the case with our $14 trillion.