What did you think would happen in an Obama presidency?

Frank Sonnek points to this post, which rehearses all of the dire warnings made four years ago about what would happen if Barack Obama were to be elected, most of which never amounted to anything:  “This is the most important election of all time!” (again).

He asks, “What were other Republican predictions of an Obama presidency? Did they pan out?”

That’s a fair question.  Was he as bad as we thought he would be?

He did not unmask himself as a Saul Alinsky communist, despite his community organizing days, and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat, at least as far as I know.  So we should give him credit for that.

Of course, we could also turn the question around, asking those who voted for him the first time, was he as good as you thought he would be?

What were your expectations, and, for better or for worse, did Obama fulfill them?

(For example, I figured that he would at least stop the wars.  But our people are still fighting and dying in Afghanistan.  I thought stopping the wars would at least be a benefit of his liberalism.  And now we have the drone wars, straight out of Star Wars.  I didn’t see such bloodshed coming out of an Obama administration.)

I suspect that the reason Americans tend to re-elect incumbents is, paradoxically, their conservative nature.  The current guy may not be very good, but at least the Republic has survived while he was running things.  We don’t know if it will or won’t under the other guy.

 

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • SKPeterson

    In 2008, my basic assessment was that things would continue to go downhill despite who was elected. They have.

    In 2012, my basic assessment is that thing will continue to go downhill despite who is elected. They will. Until maybe 2014 or so, then depending more on Congress and the behavior of the Federal Reserve, we may see more improvement. If we have QE3, 4 and 5, through 2013 and 2014, the prognosis after then is not good. The President though is likely to be a minor player in this either way – he will be more shaped by, than a shaper of, the events that unfold.

  • SKPeterson

    In 2008, my basic assessment was that things would continue to go downhill despite who was elected. They have.

    In 2012, my basic assessment is that thing will continue to go downhill despite who is elected. They will. Until maybe 2014 or so, then depending more on Congress and the behavior of the Federal Reserve, we may see more improvement. If we have QE3, 4 and 5, through 2013 and 2014, the prognosis after then is not good. The President though is likely to be a minor player in this either way – he will be more shaped by, than a shaper of, the events that unfold.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    Of course the downhill slide will continue no matter who gets in.

    It’s a matter of how fast you want to go.

    Obama hates this country and wants to “change” it into something else, and Mitt will just do a little better than that because of all the pressure by the millions of utopians (thank you public school system) for goodies.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    Of course the downhill slide will continue no matter who gets in.

    It’s a matter of how fast you want to go.

    Obama hates this country and wants to “change” it into something else, and Mitt will just do a little better than that because of all the pressure by the millions of utopians (thank you public school system) for goodies.

  • Cincinnatus

    Agree with SKP.

    And as I recall, I agreed in 2008 too.

  • Cincinnatus

    Agree with SKP.

    And as I recall, I agreed in 2008 too.

  • Dennis

    I’ve spent the last year working with small business owners in many different industries. Many are bleeding money. They are holding out with the hope that there is a change of administration. If Obama is reelected, there will be announcements of closings throughout November, December, and January. Unemployment will go back up. (Even with a change of administrations, I’m afraid many still will not make it–they just may hang on a little longer.)

  • Dennis

    I’ve spent the last year working with small business owners in many different industries. Many are bleeding money. They are holding out with the hope that there is a change of administration. If Obama is reelected, there will be announcements of closings throughout November, December, and January. Unemployment will go back up. (Even with a change of administrations, I’m afraid many still will not make it–they just may hang on a little longer.)

  • Trey

    Gitmo is still open.

  • Trey

    Gitmo is still open.

  • larry

    I agree with all the above.

    This is my prediction, not necessarily my wishes:

    Mitt will win and win larger than most expect. Why? Because the desperation of the economy is getting beyond personalities on both sides. I talk to a fair amount of democrats and they are scared economically, I mean getting really scared. Same with run of the mill everyday joe republicans. Because the economics of the situation is really starting to get down to actually, not in theory, putting food on the table. When that happens ideals get real short and sweet real quick.

    There might be a temporary bump up. However, X months in when it is realized that even a “fresh new face” is not going to be enough, then the panic will begin to really set in.

  • larry

    I agree with all the above.

    This is my prediction, not necessarily my wishes:

    Mitt will win and win larger than most expect. Why? Because the desperation of the economy is getting beyond personalities on both sides. I talk to a fair amount of democrats and they are scared economically, I mean getting really scared. Same with run of the mill everyday joe republicans. Because the economics of the situation is really starting to get down to actually, not in theory, putting food on the table. When that happens ideals get real short and sweet real quick.

    There might be a temporary bump up. However, X months in when it is realized that even a “fresh new face” is not going to be enough, then the panic will begin to really set in.

  • P.C.

    Obama was worse than I expected. Nearly four years without a budget (much less a balanced budget), unemployment numbers are terrible, foreign policy is disturbing, Congress is inept, and on and on. However, what most disturbs me is that during the past four years I never felt that we Americans were being lead or governed. We have just been floating out there somewhere.

  • P.C.

    Obama was worse than I expected. Nearly four years without a budget (much less a balanced budget), unemployment numbers are terrible, foreign policy is disturbing, Congress is inept, and on and on. However, what most disturbs me is that during the past four years I never felt that we Americans were being lead or governed. We have just been floating out there somewhere.

  • Patrick Kyle

    I expected Obamacare and a deliberate failure to enforce immigration laws.

    I did not expect:
    A crooked Attorney General (Fast and Furious )

    No SEC enforcement on Wall Street.

    Continued wars. (A man from my congregation whose son is a pilot in the military told me his son is now training for conflict in Syria).

    A proliferation of Governmental ‘Czars’ (Does anyone else find that term ironic?) that are cronies or related to O’s political mentors from the past.

    After promises of ‘transparency in government’ the the stepped up prosecution of government whistleblowers.

  • Patrick Kyle

    I expected Obamacare and a deliberate failure to enforce immigration laws.

    I did not expect:
    A crooked Attorney General (Fast and Furious )

    No SEC enforcement on Wall Street.

    Continued wars. (A man from my congregation whose son is a pilot in the military told me his son is now training for conflict in Syria).

    A proliferation of Governmental ‘Czars’ (Does anyone else find that term ironic?) that are cronies or related to O’s political mentors from the past.

    After promises of ‘transparency in government’ the the stepped up prosecution of government whistleblowers.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I neither voted for him nor expected much of him — or, at least, so it seems to me now. Maybe I was more naive back in 2008. I guess I didn’t expect the drone program as such back then, but I’ve come to expect that Presidents largely continue the practices of their predecessors, no matter how much they railed against them in the election.

    Still, I find P.C.’s comment (@7) symptomatic of the problems in our country:

    Obama was worse than I expected. Nearly four years without a budget (much less a balanced budget), unemployment numbers are terrible, foreign policy is disturbing, Congress is inept, and on and on. However, what most disturbs me is that during the past four years I never felt that we Americans were being lead or governed.

    See? Citizens apparently expect the President to (1) pass budgets, (2) control unemployment rates, (3) take the blame for what Congress does, and (4) give us the feeling of “being lead”.

    Sounds like you want a heavy-handed man with an amazing amount of power, P.C. What a surprise, then, that the Presidency has been headed that way. We increasingly pretend we’re voting for a king, Congress increasingly defers to him as if he were a king, and yet, for some reason, Republicans continue to complain about the fact that he’s got these royal powers (except, you know, when a Republican has the thro… er, is in office).

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I neither voted for him nor expected much of him — or, at least, so it seems to me now. Maybe I was more naive back in 2008. I guess I didn’t expect the drone program as such back then, but I’ve come to expect that Presidents largely continue the practices of their predecessors, no matter how much they railed against them in the election.

    Still, I find P.C.’s comment (@7) symptomatic of the problems in our country:

    Obama was worse than I expected. Nearly four years without a budget (much less a balanced budget), unemployment numbers are terrible, foreign policy is disturbing, Congress is inept, and on and on. However, what most disturbs me is that during the past four years I never felt that we Americans were being lead or governed.

    See? Citizens apparently expect the President to (1) pass budgets, (2) control unemployment rates, (3) take the blame for what Congress does, and (4) give us the feeling of “being lead”.

    Sounds like you want a heavy-handed man with an amazing amount of power, P.C. What a surprise, then, that the Presidency has been headed that way. We increasingly pretend we’re voting for a king, Congress increasingly defers to him as if he were a king, and yet, for some reason, Republicans continue to complain about the fact that he’s got these royal powers (except, you know, when a Republican has the thro… er, is in office).

  • MarkB

    I agree with @8. He was much worse than I thought he would be.

    Now as to a Romney presidency: If he is able to swing the economy around it will not appear like it for a long time. My reasoning is this: The unemployment numbers are based on the U-3 number which only takes into account those who are supposedly looking for work. When the economy does swing around there will be more people looking for work and the U-3 number will naturally go up. And with a media that will try to highlight anything that appears wrong in any Republican administration it will be in the news every night.
    We have also not seen the total effects of the easing of monetary supply by the Fed. QE-3 or whatever it is called is going to push inflation very high and it is already much higher than the government reports because of the changes to the way it is calculated. Does anyone really think with double the price in gasoline, energy up and food prices up we don’t have inflation?
    It is going to be a tought time for everyone for the next 4 years, but we definitely need to change direction and quit spending more than we take in. But, will we the people stand for that? Or will the streets erupt like in Greece, Spain and Portugal?

  • MarkB

    I agree with @8. He was much worse than I thought he would be.

    Now as to a Romney presidency: If he is able to swing the economy around it will not appear like it for a long time. My reasoning is this: The unemployment numbers are based on the U-3 number which only takes into account those who are supposedly looking for work. When the economy does swing around there will be more people looking for work and the U-3 number will naturally go up. And with a media that will try to highlight anything that appears wrong in any Republican administration it will be in the news every night.
    We have also not seen the total effects of the easing of monetary supply by the Fed. QE-3 or whatever it is called is going to push inflation very high and it is already much higher than the government reports because of the changes to the way it is calculated. Does anyone really think with double the price in gasoline, energy up and food prices up we don’t have inflation?
    It is going to be a tought time for everyone for the next 4 years, but we definitely need to change direction and quit spending more than we take in. But, will we the people stand for that? Or will the streets erupt like in Greece, Spain and Portugal?

  • Grace

    “What did you think would happen in an Obama presidency?”

    I believed it would be a catastrophe. One of the reasons; Obama was head of the Law Review at Harvard, without any published papers. He has little to no experience, unless you count his ‘Community Organizer title in Chicago. Then there is his short stint in the Senate for less then two years.

    Obama was impressed with Marxist ideas:

    “To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists ..”
    Obama – Page 100 “Dreams from My Father”

    “I opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying.”
    Obama

    YouTube – SHOCKING Obama words: what he really thinks of white folks

    Some of these quotes left out of audio books.

  • Grace

    “What did you think would happen in an Obama presidency?”

    I believed it would be a catastrophe. One of the reasons; Obama was head of the Law Review at Harvard, without any published papers. He has little to no experience, unless you count his ‘Community Organizer title in Chicago. Then there is his short stint in the Senate for less then two years.

    Obama was impressed with Marxist ideas:

    “To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists ..”
    Obama – Page 100 “Dreams from My Father”

    “I opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying.”
    Obama

    YouTube – SHOCKING Obama words: what he really thinks of white folks

    Some of these quotes left out of audio books.

  • Carl Vehse

    “I suspect that the reason Americans tend to re-elect incumbents is, paradoxically, their conservative nature. “

    And in the case of Demonicrat incumbents, the alleged paradoxical “conservative nature” even brings constituents back from the dead to vote… and vote often.

  • Carl Vehse

    “I suspect that the reason Americans tend to re-elect incumbents is, paradoxically, their conservative nature. “

    And in the case of Demonicrat incumbents, the alleged paradoxical “conservative nature” even brings constituents back from the dead to vote… and vote often.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Whoa there, Carl (@12)! Don’t blow all your good material at once. You only have, what, three jokes, right? So try working your “Demonicrat” humor in one comment, and then, once the laughter has died down, bring down the house with the “dead voting” schtick in a separate one. I’m only trying to help you here.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Whoa there, Carl (@12)! Don’t blow all your good material at once. You only have, what, three jokes, right? So try working your “Demonicrat” humor in one comment, and then, once the laughter has died down, bring down the house with the “dead voting” schtick in a separate one. I’m only trying to help you here.

  • Jon H.

    One thing we can credit the president for having done – causing the right wing synods to join that great Evangelical push to elect the first LDS president. Mainstreaming a religion many once regarded as a cult will be the ultimate legacy of the Religious Right.

  • Jon H.

    One thing we can credit the president for having done – causing the right wing synods to join that great Evangelical push to elect the first LDS president. Mainstreaming a religion many once regarded as a cult will be the ultimate legacy of the Religious Right.

  • Grace

    Jon @14 “Mainstreaming a religion many once regarded as a cult will be the ultimate legacy of the Religious Right.”

    That is one of the most nonsensical comments I’ve read this week! Is that your “legacy” to write such bunk?

  • Grace

    Jon @14 “Mainstreaming a religion many once regarded as a cult will be the ultimate legacy of the Religious Right.”

    That is one of the most nonsensical comments I’ve read this week! Is that your “legacy” to write such bunk?

  • P.C.

    Todd @9 said “but I’ve come to expect that Presidents largely continue the practices of their predecessors, no matter how much they railed against them in the election.”

    I don’t think, Todd, that Ronald Reagan continued the practice of his predecessor, Jimmy Carter, with accepting national malaise, 21% interest rates (I bought my first house at that time), and severely underfunding the military (I know something about that, too) if you get my point.

    Todd continues, “Still, I find P.C.’s comment (@7) symptomatic of the problems in our country…See? Citizens apparently expect the President to (1) pass budgets, (2) control unemployment rates, (3) take the blame for what Congress does, and (4) give us the feeling of “being lead”. Sounds like you want a heavy-handed man with an amazing amount of power, P.C.”.

    Apparently, unlike you, Todd, I expect something out of people, whether they are elected, appointed, employer, employee, friends, spouse, kids and, especially, myself. You obviously have a weak understanding of leadership and expectations and have probably never been in a position which required continuous leadership to keep an organization moving forward, providing a service, and keeping people save from harm and danger (kind of like a President) which is symptomatic of your liberal (I mean libertarian) views.

    I stand by my original point. I don’t think Obama has been a stellar leader the past four years, whether Todd agrees or not.

  • P.C.

    Todd @9 said “but I’ve come to expect that Presidents largely continue the practices of their predecessors, no matter how much they railed against them in the election.”

    I don’t think, Todd, that Ronald Reagan continued the practice of his predecessor, Jimmy Carter, with accepting national malaise, 21% interest rates (I bought my first house at that time), and severely underfunding the military (I know something about that, too) if you get my point.

    Todd continues, “Still, I find P.C.’s comment (@7) symptomatic of the problems in our country…See? Citizens apparently expect the President to (1) pass budgets, (2) control unemployment rates, (3) take the blame for what Congress does, and (4) give us the feeling of “being lead”. Sounds like you want a heavy-handed man with an amazing amount of power, P.C.”.

    Apparently, unlike you, Todd, I expect something out of people, whether they are elected, appointed, employer, employee, friends, spouse, kids and, especially, myself. You obviously have a weak understanding of leadership and expectations and have probably never been in a position which required continuous leadership to keep an organization moving forward, providing a service, and keeping people save from harm and danger (kind of like a President) which is symptomatic of your liberal (I mean libertarian) views.

    I stand by my original point. I don’t think Obama has been a stellar leader the past four years, whether Todd agrees or not.

  • DonS

    The last four years have generally met expectations, unfortunately. We have added about $5 trillion to our national debt, and even the Democratic Senate could not raise even a single vote in support of Obama’s budget proposals during the last two years. They were that bad. We did get out of Iraq, but without any kind of plan for trying to maintain U.S. influence and stability there — it will be fully lost in short order. Afghanistan, despite Obama’s surge, has been a seemingly futile endeavor and we have announced to our enemies there our full departure by 2014. Any gains we made there will eventually be lost to radical Islamists, as in Iraq. Our embracing of the “Arab Spring” resulted in the disaster that is our Libyan foreign policy, as well as the loss of our ally Egypt to the point where Obama himself admitted, in a moment of candor that he later retracted because of campaign pressures, that we cannot consider Egypt to be any longer our ally.

    On the Supreme Court, we added Sotomayor and Kagen, to the detriment of our constitutional jurisprudence for decades to come. Hundreds of similarly leftist judges have been appointed to our lower federal courts.

    Worst of all, Obama and the Democrats jammed Obamacare down the throats of the American people, despite clear majority opposition and without the support of a single Republican. As a result, we are in the process of losing many healthcare choices, paying double or more what we were paying for insurance, and forcing people to purchase coverage for morally abhorrent benefits whether or not they are religiously or morally opposed.

    And for all of the spending, additional food stamps benefits, Obamacare benefits, and the like, the economy is still in the tank.

    Yes, it was at least as bad as anyone could have expected in four short years. Which is why Obama is about to be a one-term president.

  • DonS

    The last four years have generally met expectations, unfortunately. We have added about $5 trillion to our national debt, and even the Democratic Senate could not raise even a single vote in support of Obama’s budget proposals during the last two years. They were that bad. We did get out of Iraq, but without any kind of plan for trying to maintain U.S. influence and stability there — it will be fully lost in short order. Afghanistan, despite Obama’s surge, has been a seemingly futile endeavor and we have announced to our enemies there our full departure by 2014. Any gains we made there will eventually be lost to radical Islamists, as in Iraq. Our embracing of the “Arab Spring” resulted in the disaster that is our Libyan foreign policy, as well as the loss of our ally Egypt to the point where Obama himself admitted, in a moment of candor that he later retracted because of campaign pressures, that we cannot consider Egypt to be any longer our ally.

    On the Supreme Court, we added Sotomayor and Kagen, to the detriment of our constitutional jurisprudence for decades to come. Hundreds of similarly leftist judges have been appointed to our lower federal courts.

    Worst of all, Obama and the Democrats jammed Obamacare down the throats of the American people, despite clear majority opposition and without the support of a single Republican. As a result, we are in the process of losing many healthcare choices, paying double or more what we were paying for insurance, and forcing people to purchase coverage for morally abhorrent benefits whether or not they are religiously or morally opposed.

    And for all of the spending, additional food stamps benefits, Obamacare benefits, and the like, the economy is still in the tank.

    Yes, it was at least as bad as anyone could have expected in four short years. Which is why Obama is about to be a one-term president.

  • P.C.

    Well said DonS.

  • P.C.

    Well said DonS.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    No, seriously, can someone explain to me how Congressional budgets, or the lack thereof, are somehow the President’s fault? It’s not like they only failed to exist due to his not signing them.

    Also, how is it that those nominally in favor of a small federal government hold the President responsible for “the economy” or unemployment numbers? What powers, exactly, does or should he wield to affect these things? Because it makes you “conservatives” sound like statists when you complain about such things.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    No, seriously, can someone explain to me how Congressional budgets, or the lack thereof, are somehow the President’s fault? It’s not like they only failed to exist due to his not signing them.

    Also, how is it that those nominally in favor of a small federal government hold the President responsible for “the economy” or unemployment numbers? What powers, exactly, does or should he wield to affect these things? Because it makes you “conservatives” sound like statists when you complain about such things.

  • P.C.

    tODD,

    Since you seldom answer the “question of the day” with an original thought (you only provide us with pithy, ascerbic comments on what others have opined) did Obama meet your expectations these last four years?

    I would love to answer your questions above but I gotta go. Big date with the vivacious Mrs C. Going to Atlas Schrugged, Part II. Perhaps tomorrow. In the meantime, give us some of your insightfulness.

  • P.C.

    tODD,

    Since you seldom answer the “question of the day” with an original thought (you only provide us with pithy, ascerbic comments on what others have opined) did Obama meet your expectations these last four years?

    I would love to answer your questions above but I gotta go. Big date with the vivacious Mrs C. Going to Atlas Schrugged, Part II. Perhaps tomorrow. In the meantime, give us some of your insightfulness.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    P.C. (@20), hello? You already quoted from the part of my response (@9) where I did just that.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    P.C. (@20), hello? You already quoted from the part of my response (@9) where I did just that.

  • Grace

    P. C. @ 20

    “Since you seldom answer the “question of the day” with an original thought (you only provide us with pithy, ascerbic comments on what others have opined) did Obama meet your expectations these last four years?”

    That’s a hot on question – in fact you deserve the gold ☆ of the day!

    Hold on folks, we might get an original answer!

  • Grace

    P. C. @ 20

    “Since you seldom answer the “question of the day” with an original thought (you only provide us with pithy, ascerbic comments on what others have opined) did Obama meet your expectations these last four years?”

    That’s a hot on question – in fact you deserve the gold ☆ of the day!

    Hold on folks, we might get an original answer!

  • Grace

    tODD @21

    No tODD, you tripped all over P. C.’s comment @7 with yours @9.

  • Grace

    tODD @21

    No tODD, you tripped all over P. C.’s comment @7 with yours @9.

  • SKPeterson

    P.C. – The large interest rates were a Reagan era phenomenon induced by Volcker to cure the Carter era stagflation. Other than Reagan though most presidents over the last 40 or 50 years have largely stayed close to the policies of their predecessors. That is the case with Obama post – Bush, and with Romney should he win. The differences are marginal, and exceedingly so.

  • SKPeterson

    P.C. – The large interest rates were a Reagan era phenomenon induced by Volcker to cure the Carter era stagflation. Other than Reagan though most presidents over the last 40 or 50 years have largely stayed close to the policies of their predecessors. That is the case with Obama post – Bush, and with Romney should he win. The differences are marginal, and exceedingly so.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 19: We have not had a duly signed federal budget since FY 2010, which ended on September 30, 2010. FY 2011, 2012, and now 2013 have all been funded by continuing resolutions. Now, obviously, Congress has to pass a budget before the president can sign it, but the president hasn’t pushed the issue, being content with CR’s. The real fault for a lack of a federal budget lies with the Democratic Senate, which has irresponsibly chosen not to enact one for political reasons, beginning with FY 2010 as the 2012 midterm elections were approaching. The funny thing is, when Republicans forced the Senate to vote on Obama’s proposed FY 2012 budget, it was voted down 97-0! Obama gets the blame for cruddy leadership on budget issues — not even one of his own party’s senators would support his efforts.

    I think that blame is fully justified.

    As for your second question, the way a president can help get the economy moving again is to get the government out of the way. Reform taxes to make them simpler and less punitive for those who produce jobs, reduce regulations, stop subsidizing unproductive businesses for political reasons. Obama has done the exact opposite in all of these areas.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 19: We have not had a duly signed federal budget since FY 2010, which ended on September 30, 2010. FY 2011, 2012, and now 2013 have all been funded by continuing resolutions. Now, obviously, Congress has to pass a budget before the president can sign it, but the president hasn’t pushed the issue, being content with CR’s. The real fault for a lack of a federal budget lies with the Democratic Senate, which has irresponsibly chosen not to enact one for political reasons, beginning with FY 2010 as the 2012 midterm elections were approaching. The funny thing is, when Republicans forced the Senate to vote on Obama’s proposed FY 2012 budget, it was voted down 97-0! Obama gets the blame for cruddy leadership on budget issues — not even one of his own party’s senators would support his efforts.

    I think that blame is fully justified.

    As for your second question, the way a president can help get the economy moving again is to get the government out of the way. Reform taxes to make them simpler and less punitive for those who produce jobs, reduce regulations, stop subsidizing unproductive businesses for political reasons. Obama has done the exact opposite in all of these areas.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@25):

    The real fault for a lack of a federal budget lies with the Democratic Senate…

    Thank you! You are one of a precious few people — even and especially among those who claim to be big fans of the Constitution — to admit or acknowledge as much.

    As for your second question, the way a president can help get the economy moving again is to get the government out of the way. Reform taxes to make them simpler and less punitive for those who produce jobs, reduce regulations, stop subsidizing unproductive businesses for political reasons.

    …And then you blew it all again with this comment. Honestly, are you just being disingenuous? Do you just want to blame Obama so bad that you’re going to ignore the Constitution you claim to be a fan of?

    Do I have to spell it out, even for you, a lawyer, Don? Who has the power to lay and collect (and therefore “reform”) taxes? Is it the President?

    Who has the power over federal subsidies? Is it the President? Who writes the laws that comprise many, many, many of our regulations? Is it the President?

    Honestly, how am I supposed to take you people seriously when you blame the President for things that have nothing to do with his office?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@25):

    The real fault for a lack of a federal budget lies with the Democratic Senate…

    Thank you! You are one of a precious few people — even and especially among those who claim to be big fans of the Constitution — to admit or acknowledge as much.

    As for your second question, the way a president can help get the economy moving again is to get the government out of the way. Reform taxes to make them simpler and less punitive for those who produce jobs, reduce regulations, stop subsidizing unproductive businesses for political reasons.

    …And then you blew it all again with this comment. Honestly, are you just being disingenuous? Do you just want to blame Obama so bad that you’re going to ignore the Constitution you claim to be a fan of?

    Do I have to spell it out, even for you, a lawyer, Don? Who has the power to lay and collect (and therefore “reform”) taxes? Is it the President?

    Who has the power over federal subsidies? Is it the President? Who writes the laws that comprise many, many, many of our regulations? Is it the President?

    Honestly, how am I supposed to take you people seriously when you blame the President for things that have nothing to do with his office?

  • P.C.

    Todd,

    No need for me to respond to your questions @ 19 since DonS did it so much better than I ever could.

    Grace,

    Ha, you made me laugh. We are still waiting for Todd’s response to ” did Obama meet your expectations these last four years?” As in the past, I’m not so sure we will ever get one.

  • P.C.

    Todd,

    No need for me to respond to your questions @ 19 since DonS did it so much better than I ever could.

    Grace,

    Ha, you made me laugh. We are still waiting for Todd’s response to ” did Obama meet your expectations these last four years?” As in the past, I’m not so sure we will ever get one.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@25), you also mentioned

    when Republicans forced the Senate to vote on Obama’s proposed FY 2012 budget, it was voted down 97-0! Obama gets the blame for cruddy leadership on budget issues — not even one of his own party’s senators would support his efforts.

    I can’t tell if you’re being hopelessly naive, or if you just hope I am.

    Here’s what one paper had to say about the actions of the Democratic senators:

    Democratic aides said ahead of the vote that the Democratic caucus would not support the plan because it has been supplanted by the deficit-reduction plan Obama outlined at a speech at George Washington University in April.

    So you can see how your claims of senators “not supporting [Obama's] efforts” are so much nonsense.

    But let’s ask some of your idealogical fellow travelers about such votes:

    Such votes are taken “just as a means of embarrassing the president and his party,” said Patrick Louis Knudsen, a senior fellow with the conservative Heritage Foundation.

    “Usually it’s brought up by the opposition party because they generally anticipate that a president’s budget won’t get very much support especially if it has controversial elements to it,” he said.

    Other experts agree. Said Steve Ellis, of Taxpayers for Common Sense: “That was pure political theater and was done to score rhetorical points.”

    And Norman Ornstein, a scholar with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said, “it doesn’t mean a damn thing. It’s only a symbolic gesture.”

    Come on, Don.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@25), you also mentioned

    when Republicans forced the Senate to vote on Obama’s proposed FY 2012 budget, it was voted down 97-0! Obama gets the blame for cruddy leadership on budget issues — not even one of his own party’s senators would support his efforts.

    I can’t tell if you’re being hopelessly naive, or if you just hope I am.

    Here’s what one paper had to say about the actions of the Democratic senators:

    Democratic aides said ahead of the vote that the Democratic caucus would not support the plan because it has been supplanted by the deficit-reduction plan Obama outlined at a speech at George Washington University in April.

    So you can see how your claims of senators “not supporting [Obama's] efforts” are so much nonsense.

    But let’s ask some of your idealogical fellow travelers about such votes:

    Such votes are taken “just as a means of embarrassing the president and his party,” said Patrick Louis Knudsen, a senior fellow with the conservative Heritage Foundation.

    “Usually it’s brought up by the opposition party because they generally anticipate that a president’s budget won’t get very much support especially if it has controversial elements to it,” he said.

    Other experts agree. Said Steve Ellis, of Taxpayers for Common Sense: “That was pure political theater and was done to score rhetorical points.”

    And Norman Ornstein, a scholar with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said, “it doesn’t mean a damn thing. It’s only a symbolic gesture.”

    Come on, Don.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    P.C. (@27) said:

    No need for me to respond to your questions @ 19 since DonS did it so much better than I ever could.

    Oh, so you also don’t understand the President’s Constitutional powers? So be it.

    We are still waiting for Todd’s response to ” did Obama meet your expectations these last four years?”

    Of course, I’m under no obligation to respond to this or that part of the blog conversation. And I definitely don’t feel the need to take directions from a couple of blog-comment rent-a-cops.

    But honestly, if you can’t find my response (@9), it’s your own reading comprehension holding you back at this point.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    P.C. (@27) said:

    No need for me to respond to your questions @ 19 since DonS did it so much better than I ever could.

    Oh, so you also don’t understand the President’s Constitutional powers? So be it.

    We are still waiting for Todd’s response to ” did Obama meet your expectations these last four years?”

    Of course, I’m under no obligation to respond to this or that part of the blog conversation. And I definitely don’t feel the need to take directions from a couple of blog-comment rent-a-cops.

    But honestly, if you can’t find my response (@9), it’s your own reading comprehension holding you back at this point.

  • Grace

    tODD @ 29

    “Of course, I’m under no obligation to respond to this or that part of the blog conversation. And I definitely don’t feel the need to take directions from a couple of blog-comment rent-a-cops.”

    Who needs a “rent-a-cops” when we have you for FREE!

  • Grace

    tODD @ 29

    “Of course, I’m under no obligation to respond to this or that part of the blog conversation. And I definitely don’t feel the need to take directions from a couple of blog-comment rent-a-cops.”

    Who needs a “rent-a-cops” when we have you for FREE!

  • CRB

    I think that regardless of who is elected, the bottom line is still $: a debt so astronomical that our country may eventually find itself not much different from third world countries in many respects.
    Also this country is reaping what it’s sown in turning away from Christ and many rejecting the gospel. It’s as Luther said:
    “Make use of God’s grace and Word while it is here! For you should know this: God’s Word and grace is a passing downpour, which does not return to where it has already been.”

  • CRB

    I think that regardless of who is elected, the bottom line is still $: a debt so astronomical that our country may eventually find itself not much different from third world countries in many respects.
    Also this country is reaping what it’s sown in turning away from Christ and many rejecting the gospel. It’s as Luther said:
    “Make use of God’s grace and Word while it is here! For you should know this: God’s Word and grace is a passing downpour, which does not return to where it has already been.”

  • kerner

    tODD:

    Your position (others too, but you have been the most vocal on this thread) is too simplistic. Sure, under the Constitution political power has been intentionally spread around, plus checked and balanced, among a lot of different institutions. But implying that the president has no effect on how all these other institutions behave or what they do is just silly.

    The president’s power to appoint judges affects how this nation’s laws will be interpreted, which determines how they are put into effect and enforced. A major impact on us all.

    Likewise the power to regulate and administer. Do you honestly think that the employment numbers are unaffected by the policies of the Labor? Or the Environmental Protection Agency? Or the IRS? Or the Justice Department? Do you honestly think the price of energy is unaffected by the policies of the department of the interior or the EPA, or even the State Department?

    Likewise party leadership. You nand DonS agree that the Democrats in the Senate have prevented the passage of a budget, but do you honestly think that if the president, the leader of his party in fact if not in name, pressured Congressional Democrats to make the decisions and compromises necessary to arrive at a budget that it wouldn’t get done.

    I know conservatives tend to pull the example of Ronald Reagan out of our hats at a moments notice, but in this case it is appropriate. Ronald Reagan had an opposition party in control of both houses of Congress for his entire administration, but he still got of his goals accomplished. Even though he lacked the overt authority to issue commands, he knew how to work the political system to get even his opponents to do a lot of what he wanted them to do. When some of the writers here complain about a “lack of leadership”, it is the inability to do this that they are talking about.

    Bill Clinton had a similar quality of leadership, although in kind of a negative way (Negative meaning restrictive, not bad). Clinton couldn’t get a lot of left wing things done, but he prevented a lot of right wing goals from being accomplished, and this in itself had an effect similar to affirmatively getting things done.

    Barak Obama had an enormous amount of political capital when he took office, but he didn’t use it wisely. Instead of using it to encourage economic growth and jobs, (or keeping promises to some of the smaller components of his coalition, like gays and hispanics), he used all his efforts to pass a stimulous bill that was mostly a give away to his political friends. For example, it gave General Motors to the UAW, it funded a bunch of “Green” companies for making products for which there is no market, and it funded bloated and overpaid local government employees for about a year. The other thing he did was push a health care bill through congress that is disliked by most Americans.

    The effect of this was to trigger a political backlash and now the rest of his agenda is stymied, but it wouldn’t be this way if he hadn’t been such a bad leader politically at the outset.

  • kerner

    tODD:

    Your position (others too, but you have been the most vocal on this thread) is too simplistic. Sure, under the Constitution political power has been intentionally spread around, plus checked and balanced, among a lot of different institutions. But implying that the president has no effect on how all these other institutions behave or what they do is just silly.

    The president’s power to appoint judges affects how this nation’s laws will be interpreted, which determines how they are put into effect and enforced. A major impact on us all.

    Likewise the power to regulate and administer. Do you honestly think that the employment numbers are unaffected by the policies of the Labor? Or the Environmental Protection Agency? Or the IRS? Or the Justice Department? Do you honestly think the price of energy is unaffected by the policies of the department of the interior or the EPA, or even the State Department?

    Likewise party leadership. You nand DonS agree that the Democrats in the Senate have prevented the passage of a budget, but do you honestly think that if the president, the leader of his party in fact if not in name, pressured Congressional Democrats to make the decisions and compromises necessary to arrive at a budget that it wouldn’t get done.

    I know conservatives tend to pull the example of Ronald Reagan out of our hats at a moments notice, but in this case it is appropriate. Ronald Reagan had an opposition party in control of both houses of Congress for his entire administration, but he still got of his goals accomplished. Even though he lacked the overt authority to issue commands, he knew how to work the political system to get even his opponents to do a lot of what he wanted them to do. When some of the writers here complain about a “lack of leadership”, it is the inability to do this that they are talking about.

    Bill Clinton had a similar quality of leadership, although in kind of a negative way (Negative meaning restrictive, not bad). Clinton couldn’t get a lot of left wing things done, but he prevented a lot of right wing goals from being accomplished, and this in itself had an effect similar to affirmatively getting things done.

    Barak Obama had an enormous amount of political capital when he took office, but he didn’t use it wisely. Instead of using it to encourage economic growth and jobs, (or keeping promises to some of the smaller components of his coalition, like gays and hispanics), he used all his efforts to pass a stimulous bill that was mostly a give away to his political friends. For example, it gave General Motors to the UAW, it funded a bunch of “Green” companies for making products for which there is no market, and it funded bloated and overpaid local government employees for about a year. The other thing he did was push a health care bill through congress that is disliked by most Americans.

    The effect of this was to trigger a political backlash and now the rest of his agenda is stymied, but it wouldn’t be this way if he hadn’t been such a bad leader politically at the outset.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 26, 28: Now, are you saying that, Constitutionally, the president has NOTHING to do with whether a budget is passed? You do realize that, while Congress passes the budget, it is up to the president to sign it? Only after it is signed is it enacted. Traditionally, the passage of a budget is a collaborative effort between Congress and the president. It is the president’s obligation to propose a budget. The House either works from that one or passes its own. It then goes to the Senate. In 2009, Nancy Pelosi’s House refused to pass a budget, for the political reason of being afraid to further inflame mid-term electoral passion against one-party Democratic rule. Obama made no effort whatsoever to dissuade either the House or the Senate from this strategy. In FY 2011 and 2012, and now 2013, the president proposed a budget which the Republican House rejected in favor of its own approach. However, the Democratic Senate just completely dropped the ball, thanks to Harry Reid’s extraordinary leadership. Rather than exerting his influence on his Senate colleagues to work with the House to pass a budget, Obama went along with the CR route.

    Sure, the Republicans’ parliamentary efforts to force the Senate to consider Obama’s proposed budget on the record was political. But, if the Democrats’ excuse for providing not one solitary vote for his plan was that he had updated it since it was originally proposed, why did they not consider the updated version in lieu of the original one? And why did not Obama influence them to do so? Yes, of course — political reasons. Obama’s failure of leadership, and his unwillingness to make hard budgetary choices, is why he will be a one-term president.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 26, 28: Now, are you saying that, Constitutionally, the president has NOTHING to do with whether a budget is passed? You do realize that, while Congress passes the budget, it is up to the president to sign it? Only after it is signed is it enacted. Traditionally, the passage of a budget is a collaborative effort between Congress and the president. It is the president’s obligation to propose a budget. The House either works from that one or passes its own. It then goes to the Senate. In 2009, Nancy Pelosi’s House refused to pass a budget, for the political reason of being afraid to further inflame mid-term electoral passion against one-party Democratic rule. Obama made no effort whatsoever to dissuade either the House or the Senate from this strategy. In FY 2011 and 2012, and now 2013, the president proposed a budget which the Republican House rejected in favor of its own approach. However, the Democratic Senate just completely dropped the ball, thanks to Harry Reid’s extraordinary leadership. Rather than exerting his influence on his Senate colleagues to work with the House to pass a budget, Obama went along with the CR route.

    Sure, the Republicans’ parliamentary efforts to force the Senate to consider Obama’s proposed budget on the record was political. But, if the Democrats’ excuse for providing not one solitary vote for his plan was that he had updated it since it was originally proposed, why did they not consider the updated version in lieu of the original one? And why did not Obama influence them to do so? Yes, of course — political reasons. Obama’s failure of leadership, and his unwillingness to make hard budgetary choices, is why he will be a one-term president.

  • DonS

    Kerner, it looks like our comments crossed, but we said much the same thing.

  • DonS

    Kerner, it looks like our comments crossed, but we said much the same thing.

  • kerner

    And Cinn, SKP and the rest of you who think thst Romney as president couldn’t make a difference, think again. The reason Obama can’t “create” jobs, is because he doesn’t understand what private business responds to. His often repeated idea: hire 100,000 teachers. Only a complete nitwit with NO concept of how the free market economy works could believe that hiring (and paying) 100,000 more government employees is going to inspire private businessmen to hire people.

    Romney, on the other hand, has a concrete idea in mind. Rather than try to have the government “create” jobs, he proposes modifying existing regulations to encourage further development of our mineral resources. This has one vital characteristic that has been largely overlooked. IT CANNOT BE OUTSOURCED!!!! Everybody drilling for oil, or gas, or digging for coal or other minerals, or building and maintaining the infrastructure needed to support such operations HAS GOT TO LIVE HERE!!!!

    This policy would not “create jobs” per se. What it would do is encourage private businesses to create good jobs in large numbers. And what happens when businesses create good jobs in large numbers? Businesses make profits and employees make wages, and whent those things happen tax revenues increase and the deficit goes down (assuming we have the discipline not to spend the money).

    The same is true about Romney’s proposal for the tax code. If businesses think they can make more money they will hire more people to take on new profit making projects. Both businesses and employees make more money, and more tax revenue comes in.

    You could hear the contrast in the gubernatorial debate in Wisconsin last Thursday. The Republican pointed out that the Democrats’ tax proposal would cost 700,000+ jobs; the Democrat responded that the issue was tax fairness. So, when you lose your job, you should take comfort in knowing that things are fair? I would find that cold comfort indeed.

    Therefore, who is president can and will make a difference. At least, I think it will this time. I have to concede that in 2008 it probably wouldn’t have. John McCain had a poor grasp of economics, and that had a lot to do with why he lost the election.

  • kerner

    And Cinn, SKP and the rest of you who think thst Romney as president couldn’t make a difference, think again. The reason Obama can’t “create” jobs, is because he doesn’t understand what private business responds to. His often repeated idea: hire 100,000 teachers. Only a complete nitwit with NO concept of how the free market economy works could believe that hiring (and paying) 100,000 more government employees is going to inspire private businessmen to hire people.

    Romney, on the other hand, has a concrete idea in mind. Rather than try to have the government “create” jobs, he proposes modifying existing regulations to encourage further development of our mineral resources. This has one vital characteristic that has been largely overlooked. IT CANNOT BE OUTSOURCED!!!! Everybody drilling for oil, or gas, or digging for coal or other minerals, or building and maintaining the infrastructure needed to support such operations HAS GOT TO LIVE HERE!!!!

    This policy would not “create jobs” per se. What it would do is encourage private businesses to create good jobs in large numbers. And what happens when businesses create good jobs in large numbers? Businesses make profits and employees make wages, and whent those things happen tax revenues increase and the deficit goes down (assuming we have the discipline not to spend the money).

    The same is true about Romney’s proposal for the tax code. If businesses think they can make more money they will hire more people to take on new profit making projects. Both businesses and employees make more money, and more tax revenue comes in.

    You could hear the contrast in the gubernatorial debate in Wisconsin last Thursday. The Republican pointed out that the Democrats’ tax proposal would cost 700,000+ jobs; the Democrat responded that the issue was tax fairness. So, when you lose your job, you should take comfort in knowing that things are fair? I would find that cold comfort indeed.

    Therefore, who is president can and will make a difference. At least, I think it will this time. I have to concede that in 2008 it probably wouldn’t have. John McCain had a poor grasp of economics, and that had a lot to do with why he lost the election.

  • kerner

    DonS:

    Yes we did.

  • kerner

    DonS:

    Yes we did.

  • http://steadfastlutherans.org/ SAL

    I expect Obama’s second term to feature another recession, a major defeat of American military forces overseas and civil unrest.

    I just hope that’s the worst of it. I also hope after his term Americans can come together to elect someone that will fix the damage Obama and Bush have done to the country.

  • http://steadfastlutherans.org/ SAL

    I expect Obama’s second term to feature another recession, a major defeat of American military forces overseas and civil unrest.

    I just hope that’s the worst of it. I also hope after his term Americans can come together to elect someone that will fix the damage Obama and Bush have done to the country.

  • kerner

    SAL @37:

    Or, we could elect somebody like that in 2012.

  • kerner

    SAL @37:

    Or, we could elect somebody like that in 2012.

  • SKPeterson

    kerner – the primary reason I think things will continue to slide, even with Romney in office should it come to that, is that he won’t be able to immediately stop Bernanke and the Fed from doing their damn level best to eviscerate the dollar and impose the stealth taxation of inflation on people. Romney cites $1.86 gas when Obama came in and how it now costs $4, but he doesn’t make the connection between that fact and the causes for it: cheap money and effectively monetized debt under QE, not the President’s refusal to allow more oil and gas exploration and production. In his past statements, Romney has said he supports QE and the bailouts and the basic policies that have been responsible for the present economic malaise. I don’t see anything meaningful regarding policy coming from Romney regarding regulations. Romney comes off as a slow the pace of regulation, not a repeal and keep on repealing regulations President. Freeing up regulations on oil and gas is great, but it is not sufficient in light of the rest of the regulatory apparatus and monetary policy that creates widespread and entrenched regime uncertainty to substantially reverse course for the economy.

  • SKPeterson

    kerner – the primary reason I think things will continue to slide, even with Romney in office should it come to that, is that he won’t be able to immediately stop Bernanke and the Fed from doing their damn level best to eviscerate the dollar and impose the stealth taxation of inflation on people. Romney cites $1.86 gas when Obama came in and how it now costs $4, but he doesn’t make the connection between that fact and the causes for it: cheap money and effectively monetized debt under QE, not the President’s refusal to allow more oil and gas exploration and production. In his past statements, Romney has said he supports QE and the bailouts and the basic policies that have been responsible for the present economic malaise. I don’t see anything meaningful regarding policy coming from Romney regarding regulations. Romney comes off as a slow the pace of regulation, not a repeal and keep on repealing regulations President. Freeing up regulations on oil and gas is great, but it is not sufficient in light of the rest of the regulatory apparatus and monetary policy that creates widespread and entrenched regime uncertainty to substantially reverse course for the economy.

  • helen

    Kerner @ 35

    You say that investment in repairing our infrastructure CANNOT BE OUTSOURCED. I wish you were correct!
    Right now toll roads are being built all around Austin by a group of companies controlled by entities in Mexico and Spain. In return for getting the politicians off the hook when rate increases are made on the roads (which will be as soon as they have sufficient drivers “hooked” on the speed :80+ mph vs “stop & go” on the “tax paid for” roads) the profits on these investments will be outsourced, as the labor is undoubtedly brought in.

    In addition, I have read of things that I would consider of “strategic importance” being sold into the control of foreigners, for the sake of balancing present budgets at city, county and state levels. I would really like to see a representation of all the American land and (supposedly government owned) utilities that are in fact in the hands of overseas ownership.

  • helen

    Kerner @ 35

    You say that investment in repairing our infrastructure CANNOT BE OUTSOURCED. I wish you were correct!
    Right now toll roads are being built all around Austin by a group of companies controlled by entities in Mexico and Spain. In return for getting the politicians off the hook when rate increases are made on the roads (which will be as soon as they have sufficient drivers “hooked” on the speed :80+ mph vs “stop & go” on the “tax paid for” roads) the profits on these investments will be outsourced, as the labor is undoubtedly brought in.

    In addition, I have read of things that I would consider of “strategic importance” being sold into the control of foreigners, for the sake of balancing present budgets at city, county and state levels. I would really like to see a representation of all the American land and (supposedly government owned) utilities that are in fact in the hands of overseas ownership.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    An immediate about face would be very painful. Romney basically wants to institute some less painful reforms to start some gradual improvement. It will have some pain, but not like an abrupt turn. The media are shills for the rich. Don’t let their rhetoric fool you. Obama’s policies to tax the rich only provide nominal increases that are paid by the well to do, not the uber rich who get special deals and loopholes etc. It is kind of like taxes in California. On paper, they have high tax rates. In effect, not so much, because the well to do people who have decent jobs pay a lot, but the special people get special deals. Compare that to a state that has high property tax of which they collect every dime. Real estate can’t hide and can be attached and sold to pay the tax.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    An immediate about face would be very painful. Romney basically wants to institute some less painful reforms to start some gradual improvement. It will have some pain, but not like an abrupt turn. The media are shills for the rich. Don’t let their rhetoric fool you. Obama’s policies to tax the rich only provide nominal increases that are paid by the well to do, not the uber rich who get special deals and loopholes etc. It is kind of like taxes in California. On paper, they have high tax rates. In effect, not so much, because the well to do people who have decent jobs pay a lot, but the special people get special deals. Compare that to a state that has high property tax of which they collect every dime. Real estate can’t hide and can be attached and sold to pay the tax.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @ 40 Helen is totally onto something: ownership. Did you hear about that plan to have a private city in Honduras? Well the lawyer arguing against it was assassinated. Ownership matters.

    http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/09/24/honduras-investigate-murder-rights-lawyer

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @ 40 Helen is totally onto something: ownership. Did you hear about that plan to have a private city in Honduras? Well the lawyer arguing against it was assassinated. Ownership matters.

    http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/09/24/honduras-investigate-murder-rights-lawyer

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “His often repeated idea: hire 100,000 teachers. Only a complete nitwit with NO concept of how the free market economy works could believe that hiring (and paying) 100,000 more government employees is going to inspire private businessmen to hire people.”

    This would actually be a good idea if we had a lot of untapped potential in the form of students without access to education like in say 1850 out on the frontier. However, we have the exact opposite. The education market is supersaturated. Detroit public school district has an employee to student ratio of like 1 : 4.3 . That is like a homeschool ratio! Also, the evidence suggests that we have reached the theoretical limit of performance where more resources are generating no returns. We are getting the maximum performance that can be got from the population we have. There is no unmet demand. We don’t need more teachers.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “His often repeated idea: hire 100,000 teachers. Only a complete nitwit with NO concept of how the free market economy works could believe that hiring (and paying) 100,000 more government employees is going to inspire private businessmen to hire people.”

    This would actually be a good idea if we had a lot of untapped potential in the form of students without access to education like in say 1850 out on the frontier. However, we have the exact opposite. The education market is supersaturated. Detroit public school district has an employee to student ratio of like 1 : 4.3 . That is like a homeschool ratio! Also, the evidence suggests that we have reached the theoretical limit of performance where more resources are generating no returns. We are getting the maximum performance that can be got from the population we have. There is no unmet demand. We don’t need more teachers.

  • kerner

    sg @42:

    He may be dead, but he seems to have won his case:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/world/americas/honduras-model-cities-rejected.html?amp&_r=0

    But I’m not sure what Honduras has to to with anything.

  • kerner

    sg @42:

    He may be dead, but he seems to have won his case:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/world/americas/honduras-model-cities-rejected.html?amp&_r=0

    But I’m not sure what Honduras has to to with anything.

  • kerner

    SKP @39:

    You have a point there, and I realize that Romney and Ryan do not have the kind of experience with monetary systems per se that would put this high on their radar screens. They are, however, thinking about things like balanced budgets and economic development. In other words, money. And both of them have a decent grasp of how the private economy works. I have to believe that their administration would have a much much better chance of discovering and attempting to resolve the problems you describe than the present administration, which doesn’t know its fiscal a$$ from a hole in the ground.

    While I can’t be certain Romney-Ryan can do any good, I have to bet on the team that at least has a clue, which Obama-Biden do not.

  • kerner

    SKP @39:

    You have a point there, and I realize that Romney and Ryan do not have the kind of experience with monetary systems per se that would put this high on their radar screens. They are, however, thinking about things like balanced budgets and economic development. In other words, money. And both of them have a decent grasp of how the private economy works. I have to believe that their administration would have a much much better chance of discovering and attempting to resolve the problems you describe than the present administration, which doesn’t know its fiscal a$$ from a hole in the ground.

    While I can’t be certain Romney-Ryan can do any good, I have to bet on the team that at least has a clue, which Obama-Biden do not.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X