36 thoughts on “Obama’s Reelection”

  1. “There are two ways to run against Barack Obama: stewardship or ideology. You can run against his record or you can run against his ideas.”

    Why not both?

    1. How are his record and ideas in conflict? I see his record as the natural consequence of his ideas.

  2. “Put simply,” [Obama] said, “our health-care problem is our deficit problem” — a financial hemorrhage drowning us in debt.

    Except that Obamacare adds to spending.

    Spending is not deficit. Obamacare increases spending, and reduces the deficit. Krauthammer is either ignorant or lying.

    2. “Spending is not deficit. Obamacare increases spending, and reduces the deficit.”

      The United States has no liquidity whatsoever. Every penny spent over and above what we now spend is borrowed. It isn’t possible to increase spending and reduce our deficit.

      1. It isn’t possible to increase spending and reduce our deficit.

        There’s this thing called revenue…

        Really, is it so hard to get that deficit = spending – revenue?

        1. “Really, is it so hard to get that deficit = spending – revenue?”

          Really, is it so hard to so hard to get that there is no more revenue? None. We’re tapped out. We have nothing more to give, and have less each day. You can raise tax rates to 200% if you like, and it will bring in nothing more — because there’s nothing more to be brought in.

      1. Since Obamacare doesn’t address the root causes of the rise in health care costs

        It does more than any federal legislation in decades, if not ever. Learn some more about IPAB, comparative effectiveness research, accountable care organizations, etc.

        1. IPAB just looks like another layer of bureaucracy to do studies and write reports but is limited by law as to what they can suggest to bring down costs. And Obama or even another president could simply ignore their recommendations.

          I really don’t feel.comfortable with government dictating to doctors what type of care they should provide.

          But wasn’t Obamacare supposed to provide health insurance to everyone? Now we learn 30 million are left out. Is it really worth the loss of freedom, intrusion of government, and the high price for a program that wont even do what it was intended to do?

    4. Spending is not deficit.

      When spending outpaces revenue and, for the last 4 years, economic growth, then yes it is equivalent to deficit, you moron. Quit reading Krugman, he’s rotting your brain.

    5. Spending is not deficit. Obamacare increases spending, and reduces the deficit. Krauthammer is either ignorant or lying.

      Or he simply doesn’t buy the CBO fairy tales. Keep in mind that the CBO doesn’t consider the effects of increased insurance costs on public behavior. There’s both an increasing pool of preexisting conditions and increased required services (I see the White House boasting that 54 million Americans will get “free of cost” cancer tests as part of their insurance, whether they wanted that or not). That’s going to increase the costs borne by the federal government as well as everyone else. It will harm overall revenue collection (just because everyone is spending yet more on health care rather than stuff that grows economic activity or invests in the future).

        1. When an adversarial body admits something contrary to their interests, it’s probably true to considerable degree. The rest? Well, that requires independent confirmation.

          But you’ve heard that all before and still uncritically use the CBO.

        2. As an example, the Soviets would normally gloss over bad news. So when you heard something like (in Russian, of course):

          There has been an accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. One of the nuclear reactors was damaged. The effects of the accident are being remedied. Assistance has been provided for any affected people. An investigative commission has been set up.

          Then you know it wasn’t because someone backed their Lada into the gatehouse.

          The CBO had to admit that there were massive behavior changes just due to the initial terms of Obamacare. They can continue to pretend that revenue and cost cutting will be high enough to counter that, because those effects of the behavior changes haven’t happened yet. As time goes on, we will see (unless hopefully, Obamacare is overturned) that these other predictions of the CBO will fail in turn. That’s how the game is played, Jim.

    6. Obamacare increases spending, and reduces the deficit.

      That’s about as stupid as saying increased drinking increased sobriety.

  3. Actually our health-care problem–and by that, I mean the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Troika’s involvement in health care–is a statism problem. Of course, for a State-fellator such as Jim, that’s not a problem, but an opportunity.

  4. “Obamacare increases spending, and reduces the deficit.”

    No wonder the country is so fecked up.

    2. Well, Jim’s point is that even though spending is going up, taxes are also going up to cover the increased spending and maybe a little extra deficit reduction if you believe in unicorns.

      1. wodun writes:

        “Well, Jim’s point is that even though spending is going up, taxes are also going up to cover the increased spending and maybe a little extra deficit reduction if you believe in unicorns.”

        He should have said that, if that’s what he meant.

        But let’s say that *is* what he meant….

        Clearly he’s steeped in Krugman because if he thinks that raising tax rates is going to result in more revenue….

        if he thinks that creating scads of new taxes is going to create more revenue…..

        Then he hasn’t been paying attention for the last 50-60 years; maybe hasn’t heard of the Laffer curve or doesn’t believe in it; maybe hasn’t noticed that revenues stay around 19% no matter what you do (except cut rates and eliminate taxes – then revenues increase because the economy is growing); hasn’t paid attention to the Euro collapse; hasn’t done even the basic arithmetic of taking 100% of all rich people money and noticed just how miniscule that amount is…and how it would do NOTHING to reduce the deficit – never mind the debt.

        The new taxes in Obamacare ALONE will depress the economy.

        1. if he thinks that creating scads of new taxes is going to create more revenue…..

          Conventional wisdom is that yes, new taxes raise new revenue. But let’s consider this alternative universe of yours in which new taxes or higher tax rates only depress revenue. In your universe the only thing that could possibly increase revenue is abolishing taxes, or lowering tax rates. So let’s do that — let’s pay for Obamacare’s spending by dropping tax rates. The GOP is upset about impending defense cuts, so let’s pay for that spending with some more tax cuts. And if we dropped some more taxes we’d have so much revenue that we could balance the budget and maybe liberate Syria too!

          And no doubt in your universe the only way to lose weight is to eat increasing amounts of ice cream.

          Back here on Earth there is a Laffer curve, but it peaks at marginal tax rates of 70% or more. We’re stuck on the side where more revenue requires higher rates; there sadly is no free revenue lunch.

          1. Back here on Earth there is a Laffer curve, but it peaks at marginal tax rates of 70% or more.

            Maybe in your Bizzaro world, but here in the real historical world there is no single number — it varies by population and income type, and all of the numbers are surprisingly much less than 70%. More like 40%.

          2. Jim, you’re an idiot. By my estimate the Laffer curve has peak tax revenues at around a 30% tax rate. Add federal, state, and local taxes, and regulatory burden, and the cost of government is near twice that.

            My basis? Studies showing that a 1% increase in the tax rate or cost of doing business results in a 2.5-4% reduction in business activity.

          3. There are actual economists who’ve looked at this, and you can ask them. The answer: economists on the left estimate that the curve peaks around 70%, economists on the right decline to answer because they don’t want to get in trouble with the GOP.

            Here’s a recent review of the research literature that puts the peak at no lower than 63%. Wikipedia cites studies that come to the same conclusion.

            It would be wonderful if we could have our tax cuts and revenue increases too, but alas, things aren’t that easy.

          4. Before I left the UK, I had hit the top tax bracket and paid an effective tax rate of around 60% on every extra pound my employer paid me in bonuses, overtime or salary increases (or around 85% if I used that pound to buy gas for my car). Needless to say, I had no interest in working longer or harder when the government would take two thirds of any extra money that gave me.

            So maximising revenue at 70%? I don’t think so.

            As for ‘actual economists’, how many of them predicted this recession? Many of us were saying in the mid-2000s that throwing masses of easy credit at the economy was going to result in disaster, yet ‘actual economists’ were telling us that it was all going to be lovely. The last person I’d listen to for economic advice is an economist.

          5. Edward, you are correct. The Laffer maximum for labor markets is around 40%. When Jim talks about 70%, he’s referring to capital markets (even though he demonstrates no knowledge of this…).

            The real problem is one of diminishing returns. I’m looking at some curves now, and as it flattens out, the government is destroying about $20 of private sector revenue for every new dollar collected — everyone is poorer for it. That is ideal public policy?

            No, if the technocrats want to maximize anything, let them max the growth-maximizing rates. However, politicians do not like those rates because they are well below the Laffer maximum — if they can eat your seed corn, they will.

  5. If there were truth in advertising laws for political campaigns, about all Obama could run on is that “4 years of corruption and incompetence aren’t enough!”

    What’s the positive case that Obama deserves reelection? Is it possible to make one?

    1. Off the top of my head the positive case would look something like: pulling out of the early 2009 death spiral, saving GM and Chrysler, health insurance coverage for tens of millions, equal pay for equal work, the end to don’t ask don’t tell, big growth in sustainable energy research and production, big growth in exports, big growth in domestic energy production, the end of the Iraq war, the death of Bin Laden and lots of other terrorists, the death of Qaddafi, no major terrorist attacks on US soil, big increases in Pell grants, lots of new infrastructure and big tax cuts for workers.

  6. It’s worth noting here that Intrade has Obama at roughly 60% likely to win. All this self-inflicted head wind and Obama still looks too damn good.

    2. Could fanatics be skewing the price?

      Are people using Intrade as an insurance policy against a disaster election result?

      1. They sure could, Peter. Classic scenario would be oh, Soros throwing a few bucks in to make Obama look better, or the Koch brothers doing the same for Romney.

        Are people using Intrade as an insurance policy against a disaster election result?

        I am. I don’t know who else is.

Comments are closed.