Evidently, our President has suggested everyone write a motivation for voting on their hand, take a photograph and tweet it. I first read about it on twitter, which linked to hit and run. Naturally, I followed the directions. The tweet is here:
https://twitter.com/lucialiljegren/status/248914129769857026 Feel free to create your own picture or retweet.
You don’t have to visit to see my picture.
Oholectomy
To tell the truth, I’m having trouble coming up with a reason. On the whole, I suppose I will vote anyway.
Obama’s an empty suit who apologizes to Muhammadans (I use the term, since Muslims seem to have deified him) for killing our ambassador over a movie for the gods’ sake, and is hell-bent on wrecking our economy.
While Romney seems better on the economy and cagw, I think it is vile that he panders to the American Taliban. Hell, they all do. Both the GOP and Dem candidates for my district’s Texas state school board are advocates of teaching high-schoolers abstinence as the sole means of avoiding pregnancy. Ignorant politicians proselytizing in favor of ignorance. Shit!
How do I write that on my hand? How do I get excited over these choices?
Gary–
Really? In Texas both parties want to teach abstinence?
It can be difficult to write something on your hand. But the suggestion was soooo stoooopid, I couldn’t resist. When I looked the hash tag page was dominated by anti-Obama photos. I don’t know if that’s been the case all day.
My motivation to vote is that I can. If you went through much of your life without that ability (or if you have a bit of imagination) you understand me.
Someone please provide the quote where Obama “apologized for killing our ambassador.”
Lucia,
I don’t think the people are going to fire Mr. Obama. We got in him exactly what was advertised: a main-stream liberal who works to increase the power and scope of government at every opportunity, along with a series of unlawful actions and usurpations of federal power, as is the consistent wont of liberals everywhere. The Republic will survive Mr. Obama, even if he is in office another 4 years, especially since the House will certainly remain in the control of Republicans and block his worst efforts. These peculiar electoral experiments pass in time.
.
Unless the conservatives on the Supreme Court happen to die during his term, I expect Mr. Obama will be little more than a historical footnote by 2100, when the West Side Highway is under water. 😉
I see no reason for me to vote as I don’t care about any of the local issues/elections I could vote on, and my single vote won’t matter at state or federal level. That makes it a waste of my time.
“Bankrupting the USA”
Spending 40% more than revenue – dumping $5 trillion in debt on our children – and driving the USA rapidly into bankruptcy.
i.e., imposing about $50,000 on each taxpayer.
“Harming our Rule of Law”
Coercing contrary unalienable rights of religion.
Failing to qualify per Amendment XX.
“Ineffectual energy policy.”
Hindering fuel production and funding ineffective measures when the 10 fold increase in oil underlies the financial crisis and high unemployment.
Ultrapartisanship
Some further reasons see: The Obama you don’t know
Has there been one Republican president who has ever cut spending, cut the deficit or reduced the size of government? Anyone?
Also, see: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/
Not a tweet photo, but “economics 101” might work.
Excerpt from the WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304070104576399704275939640.html
… The story goes that Milton Friedman was once taken to see a massive government project somewhere in Asia. Thousands of workers using shovels were building a canal. Friedman was puzzled. Why weren’t there any excavators or any mechanized earth-moving equipment? A government official explained that using shovels created more jobs. Friedman’s response: “Then why not use spoons instead of shovels?”
That story came to mind last week when President Obama linked technology to job losses. “There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers,” he said. “You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don’t go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you’re using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate.” …
Owen, IMO, you used a poor and inaccurate source.
Factcheck.org version:
Note the “post-Obama” blip in federal spending:
Figure.
This figure shows spending and receipts as a percentage of GDP which IMO is the only meaningful way to look at the numbers.
Bush cut receipts through his tax bill (arguably this stimulated a surge in economic growth that led to increased receipts that you can see up until the 2007 world-wide recession). Obama did not raise receipts, but did raise spending. “Blame it all on Bush” only works if you don’t look at the numbers, or look at them with your eyes closed.
My hand is in a repetitive stress injury thingummy so this will have to serve. I’ll be voting for Barack Obama for all the right reasons–he saved Michigan, he got Osama, we’re climbing out of the hole George Bush dug for us and he doesn’t believe that 47% of the country are whiners and takers looking to avoid responsibility for their lives.
I love the guy and what he’s done. Hooray for BHO!!!
Carrick,
Yes, I had read the WaPo fact check and noted they used a ratio to GDP. Only problem is the GDP dropped due to the recession so it is not a fixed reference. In inflation-adjusted dollars spent, Obama’s % increase is not out of line. And he did need to do some stimulus.
More from the factscheck.org article:
What people miss was things like TARP were a “one-off” spending (written and voted for by a Democratic HOR and Senate, so calling this a “Bush” spending hike isn’t accurate or honest), a temporary blip.
A blip it seems turned into a binge.
Spending as a share of GDP automatically rises during a recession because the denominator falls (GDP) and the so-called “automatic stabilizers” surge. More people become elligible for Medicaid, SCHIP, SNAP, unemployment insurance, COBRA, etc. This happens automatically.
Actual “spending” increases in ARRA was about $550 billion in direct spending or aid to the states. The rest of Obama’s spending increases were primarily the various end-of-year extensions of unemployment benefits, and the cost of Obamacare which is about $1 trillion over the first decade but negligible to date.
Owen, GDP was flat more than “dropped”, so the premise of your argument is inaccurate.
Quarter GDP(cur) GSP(2005)
2007q1 13,758.5 13,056.1
2007q2 13,976.8 13,173.6
2007q3 14,126.2 13,269.8
2007q4 14,253.2 13,326.0
2008q1 14,273.9 13,266.8
2008q2 14,415.5 13,310.5
2008q3 14,395.1 13,186.9
2008q4 14,081.7 12,883.5
2009q1 13,923.4 12,711.0
2009q2 13,885.4 12,701.0
2009q3 13,952.2 12,746.7
2009q4 14,133.6 12,873.1
2010q1 14,270.3 12,947.6
2010q2 14,413.5 13,019.6
2010q3 14,576.0 13,103.5
2010q4 14,735.9 13,181.2
2011q1 14,814.9 13,183.8
2011q2 15,003.6 13,264.7
2011q3 15,163.2 13,306.9
2011q4 15,321.0 13,441.0
2012q1 15,478.3 13,506.4
2012q2 15,606.1 13,564.5
Moreover, if I want to figure out how much money I have to spend, I look at my income, which for the US is fixed by GDP. You hopefully don’t budget using inflation adjusted dollars. 😉
(Which are practically meaningless anyway, the way they are calculated, since spending power increases more rapidly than inflation, long term average at least.)
cce, I generally agree with your comments, with some qualifications:
I would add that Obama did have some discretion—he signed into law several extensions of unemployment benefits. While these inarguable helped some people, they all inarguable acted as a disincentive for people to reenter the market place, and probably contributed to the sluggish growth following the end of the recession.
Secondly, not only did Obama not curtail spending from the TARP induced “high rate”, maintaining it at those levels (what FC calls $200 billion I really call $1 trillion increase, because as I pointed out, TARP was supposed to be a “one off” spending increase, he and congress obviously found something to fill the void, when TARP rolled back off the books), he also cut taxes by $275 billion as part of ARRA.
So part of that downward blip was not just a reduction in GDP (which wasn’t particularly long lived or drastic), part of it was a Democratic president trying to stimulate the economy using temporary cuts in taxation. (Because they were temporary it can be argued the way the economic system utilized them was very different than intended or what would be expected from longer-term tax cuts.)
… arguably this stimulated a surge in economic growth that led to increased receipts that you can see up until the 2007 world-wide recession …
As could be argued by Bruce Bartlett or David Johnston perhaps . But it’s true that tax cuts act as a demand side stimulus in recessions, as Greg Mankiw would also attest (not true though when people are paying down debt as they are now). The problem with the tax cut debate is instead, to conclude from Mankiw, due to the Republican dogma created by the Reaganite charlatans and cranks.
RB:
I think the actual problem is cranky charlatanish m*rons who don’t understand the difference between the effects of short-term and long-term tax cuts.
Thomas,
A. The seals got Bin Laden. USA got Bin Laden. We got Bin Laden. Obama had nothing , zip ,zero, nota involvement. Oh, he did sit in his big chair in the situation room and he did a great job of spiking the football after the big boys handed it to him.
In fact this is the longest spike in history. Disgusting.
B. Michigan would have been much better off going through a standard bankruptcy. Their problems are not behind them.
C. Bush didn’t cause the recession he tried to warn about it and it’s causes. Obama, Frank, Dodd and the rest didn’t listen. They still aren’t.
D. I would like to hear the missing audio from the “47%” clip. You did know it was edited? Regardless the point Romnee made is crucial. See Greece. See Ben Franklin. When people can vote themselves a raise the republic is lost.
I don’t get it . I saw through this guy almost immediately,but I’ve known people just like him. But people much smarter than me love him, like you Thomas. I think it’s an idea you believe in and he represents it. But I would argue that there are faulty premises supporting your convictions, including some of your assumptions about you opponents. Of course I know I’ll never convince you of that, just a rant.
Carrick:
That may be partly true. The actual problem though, I think, is this to quote Mankiw
The main problem is the belief that tax cuts are self-financing, or in other words, the resultant growth in the economy will produce tax revenues that more than offset the drop in receipts due to the cut in tax rates.
RB, IMO, tax cuts may or may not be expansionary, you can’t take them out of context and assume, like aspirin, if one pill cures a headache, a whole bottle must help even more. (Or ascribe that theory to people you disagree with, which is even sillier.)
It’s the total fiscal policy that counts, not just one facet of it.
Carrick,
I was talking exclusively about spending. Clearly, the various temporary tax cuts are also to blame for the large deficits.
I’d also point out that ARRA was temporary, as is the payroll tax cut, and the unemployment insurance extensions. It is unlikey that many of these things will be extended longer, although with the upcoming “fiscal cliff” negotiations who knows what kind of wheeling and dealing will go on.
The estimates that I have seen is that the extension of unemployment benefits increased the unemployment rate by about .5% above what it would be without them, but the total effect is stimulative since nearly all of that money is spent, not saved.
With regard to GDP, based on some simple calculations of GDP per-capita growth over the last 60 years, GDP went from a bubble of about 5% above what would otherwise be expected to 5% below between 2007 and 2009, so it was a significant and rapid shift.
GDP has a number of limitations as a measure of a country’s economic progress. As hinted at by cce above, GDP per capita better captures the benefit to individuals. But there are a couple of other problems that are potentially much worse. First, GDP ignores the broken window fallacy. For example, rebuilding Christchurch after it was partially destroyed by an earthquake counts as a boost to New Zealand’s GDP, yet effectively produces very little that wasn’t there before (the quality of the replacement housing stock might be better than the pre-existing housing, so there is some benefit).
The second problem is that GDP doesn’t take any notice of the country’s current account. A country with a sustained current account deficit, like the US (or Australia, where I live) is in effect borrowing money from overseas to boost living standards today. The spending of borrowed money still counts as part of GDP. Eventually there will come a point where the creditor nations are no longer willing to finance this process, so it has to be unwound by forgoing some of current consumption to repay the debt. Then GDP will suffer because of the lower consumption forced by debt.
@chuckr
There would have been no way for GM to do a reorganization at the height of the financial crisis, money was not being lended, and no one would have been willing to put up the sums needed to keep the company going. They would have had to do a liquidation, and perhaps taken down the suppliers and Ford. It just would not have happened. For a contemporaneous account see:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/13/news/companies/gm_bankruptcy/index.htm
Alex Heyworth (Comment #103804)
Unfortunately, it doesn’t work like that. When governments can’t get external funding, they fund themselves. It’s called quantitative easing… basically, they just print money.
Skeptikal, you are of course quite right that governments can print money to pay off their debts. However, what usually happens long before that is that lenders get concerned that this is likely to happen, and demand higher and higher interest rates to continue their lending. Then when the debt is finally repaid with printed money, the amount to be repaid is a lot higher (because the government has allowed some of the interest to be added to the debt). The quantity of printed money is then sufficient to set off substantial inflation, possibly even hyperinflation. See http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/inflation-and-debt for an extended analysis.
But a lot of recent US debt is private sector debt. The deleveraging underway in the private sector is one of the reasons for the protracted recession/low growth period the US is undergoing (along the lines I put forward above).
I’m not a citizen so I won’t be defacing my hand. If I were to write something it would simply read “It’s my civic duty.” Then I’d go to the polling booth, pinch my nose, and put an X besides the candidate that I felt sucked less.
BTW, up here in Canada we only vote for our local Member of Parliament. The winning party then puts their leader in as PM. Time in the booth is probably about 15 seconds. Our provincial and municipal elections are separate. How long does it take the average American to vote?
Saint Bill Clinton was lucky. He served during a period when we had no recessions, a peace dividend and was on top of economic bubbles. Bush served during a period when he had book end recessions and the US was attacked. He got us out of the first recession quickly, and then controlled spending to be at or below revenues. Look closely at Carrick’s chart. In the 2007 budget year the US was ~1 yr from a balanced budget. Then he was less lucky than Saint Bill and the economic bottom fell out below his administration.
Also, we seldom pay off debt as much as we stop borrowing. Living within our means, results in paying our debts as they mature. The importance of that statement is obvious. Debt automatically goes down. The secret therefore is to control spending to rates that are less than the rate of revenue gains. Bush and Ryan are following/proposing for that policy. Obama is not!
Most states have balanced budget amendments in their constitutions, and therefore are forced to follow a more stringent economic policy. We can see how well those policies are followed and their results in our fifty micro-economies.
AJ–
It takes me about 5 minutes not counting the very short commute. The time is spent standing in the line while they look up my registration, getting the ballot and so forth, voting, depositing the ballot. There are generally several pages of choices. There will be president, congressman, sometimes senator, Illinois state races, local races — county board, judges, forest preserve– and so on.
I try to learn a little at all levels. It’s very important to make sure that kooks aren’t elected at the local level.
http://solcather.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/prolife1.jpg
Andrew
A quote from the NYTimes:
“The president can say a lot of things, and he will, but he can’t tell you that you’re better off,” said Romney running mate Paul Ryan
_____
Yes, he can.
My net worth is much greater today than it was the day President Obama took office, owing to my investments in stock and bond markets. I am heavily invested in an S&P 500 index fund, and the index is up 81% since Obama became President. I have also enjoyed appreciation in the value of my long- term bonds, and the value of my mineral holdings also have risen. The appreciation in theses investments has been much greater than the loss in the value of my real estate.
But Ryan is right in a way. I’m almost 4 years older since President Obama took office, so I’m not better off in terms of remaining years of life expectancy.
If I don’t vote to re-elect Obama who will keep the oceans from returning to their Hansenesque rise?
Golly, if I don’t vote, all this wonderfulness will likely end and it would be my own presumptively racist fault.
So on election day I will shuffle to the polls trying looking like an O-zombie. I will not appear too independent or fact-contaminated. I will be outvoted locally, of course. I will go to sleep (after checking for O-pods under the bed) and dream of better things.
Re M. Jeff (Comment #103786) on job losses due to labor-saving technology.
Some of the costs of labor saving technology is passed on to the consumer. I am reminded of this cost when I have to waste my time on the phone conversing with a recording rather than talking to a real person.
“I am heavily invested in an S&P 500 index fund”
That’s discrimination against the poor. Your wealth (you didn’t build that) should be redistributed to the needy. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Andrew
Max_OK
Think about it when you look at the clothes in your closet. Imagine how much clothing would cost if all thread or yarn was spun by hand and all fabric woven or knit by hand.
Hand made items can be beautiful. But it takes me many, many hours to knit a sweater by hand. I sit in front of the tv and it’s a diversion. But imagine if that was the only way to create clothing.
JimN (Comment #103805)
You’ve touched on a common mantra of all government programs. Regardless of the defectiveness of the endeavor government activists can always tout it’s success. If the program is not perceived to be a success it would have been worse. The claims can almost never be dis proven because we don’t have the alternative to compare. We’ll never know but I believe we would have a healthier car market if GM was allowed to fail. Even if it completely folded the market for cars and jobs would still be there. The catastrophic predictions would not have occurred because the market for cars and jobs would have been sold, absorbed and transferred. This is what happens in a free market system. Of course under that scenario no politician could claim success. As it is now somebody is still burdened by the onerous pension and benefit programs of the auto unions. The car companies or us, the US taxpayer. And lets not forget that the employees at Delphi, nonunion workers lost their pensions in the bailout.
Government involvement in private market distorts. When things go horribly wrong big government activists always have a convenient excuse. We need more control over these inept private markets If we could just have a little more control.
cce:
I don’t think you can argue that the government used this as the basis for their projected spending. Like with household income, projected changes in total GDP is what they have as a basis to work from. They knew we were in a recession and the dunderheads thought spending more and cutting receipts would bring us out of it more quickly. (It had an effect on our credit rating, maybe some of the long-term investment can be pointed as “real” improvements.)
Of course ARRA was temporary, but it was spending above what we were obtaining in receipts. We’re still at that crazy high spending level three years on from what was supposed to be a “temporary increase” from TARP and then ARRA.
Skeptikal (Comment #103806)
September 21st, 2012 at 1:10 am
“Unfortunately, it doesn’t work like that. When governments can’t get external funding, they fund themselves. It’s called quantitative easing… basically, they just print money.”
Quantitative easing is, more accurately, when the Fed buys up low risk debt from intermediaries in an effort to stimulate the economy. “Monetizing” the debt is when the Fed prints money and buys T-bills and government bonds directly from the US treasury which is currently prohibited by law. If we get to a point where the Fed is buying government debt directly from the treasury, head for the hills and bar the door. It’s over.
Lucia,
Looking at the latest polls, a layoff doesn’t really seem in the cards. Granted that a lot can change in 7 weeks, but polls this season have proved remarkably stable so barring some major gaffe from the Obama campaign (or an abysmal performance in the debates, something unlikely since Obama is a reasonably good debater, being an ex-law professor and all that), things seem unlikely to change dramatically.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
That said, we could always bet a few quats on it :-p
On a related note, why on earth is election day a workday rather than a weekend (or national holiday?). Would probably do wonders to increase the (currently rather anemic) participation in U.S. elections.
I for one do not immensely enjoy standing in line for an hour after a long day at work…
Most work places are required by law to allow you to leave and vote regardless of how long it takes (exceptions being i.e. doctors/nurses/police) I tend to vote as soon as the poll opens and go into work a bit late….hours in lines would suck.
Granted my mother is judge of elections in our district and she runs a pretty efficient poll.
I also think a weekday makes sense as more people are near “home” and thus can be in the right place to vote as opposed to out of town or on vacation.
Zeke–
Twice, I worked the polls in DuPage county. We never had long lines. The longest lines occurred when we opened not after work. Having worked polls,if a voter has infinite flexibility, I would advise arriving 1-2 hours after polls open (for a variety of reasons!) But watching the news, I know they can be very long in some areas, particularly large cities. Long lines can be an important issue.
Anyway, I always vote in the morning. But some people might find that impossible.
I don’t know why voting happens on weekdays. It may be that historically, religious accommodations dictated weekdays. Possibly, some Christians did not want to vote or work polls on Sunday. Similarly, Jews might not want to vote or work polls on Saturdays. It might be more than want– some religions might have religious proscriptions. I know, for example, that Nov. 1 is a religious holiday for Catholics. Note that voting is traditionally the first Tuesday after the first Monday in Nov. So it never falls on Nov. 1. I don’t know if the slightly complicated rule has anything to do with the Catholic holiday, but it may have.
The religious acommodation might still be an issue– though possibly less so. Now many communities permit early voting. We can vote at the county court house ahead of time. It’s very convenient if you are working the polls because you might not get assigned to your own polling place. I didn’t!
Zeke
I agree. But I still plan to vote. And for me, having a preference does motivate me to vote. I think everyone should vote.
lucia (Comment #103822)
Lucia, of course I am for increased productivity from labor-saving technology, and I know recorded phone instructions reduce the need for employees to answer phones, thus lowering the costs to the employer, who can in turn, offer me goods and services at a lower cost. However, my time is worth something, and when I have to listen to recorded instructions, choose from a menu, listen to additional instructions, etc., only to find that I still need to speak to a real person, my time has been wasted, and my productivity is lowered. And I get annoyed.
Max-OK.
I agree with you on the phone-tree systems. I don’t mind it for repetitive queries that people might want to check regularly. For example: If my bank wants to have a special phone number for checking my bank balance, I wouldn’t mind that. As a person who never has that sort of question that is not on their “pre-planned” menu, I nearly always need to speak to a person when I call, I too find it annoying.
Vote by mail.
O’zero might be a socialist tool, but he pulled the troops out of Iraq, surged troop levels in Afghanistan, increased intel assets to coordinate more drone strikes on AQ in Paki and waste OBL, and now he is poised to get us the flock out of Afghanistan. That’s excellent follow-through on his campaign promises.
He started the job mired in two wars and the biggest economic meltdown since the great depression. Sure, he could have done better, but to me, getting our boys and girls home trumps whatever minor economic benefit from a republican administration.
The most disturbing thing to me about the Romney video was his quoting Henry Kissinger with a German accent. We don’t need more world police neocons directing our foreign policy.
Lucia says “I don’t know why voting happens on weekdays. It may be that historically, religious accommodations dictated weekdays. Possibly, some Christians did not want to vote or work polls on Sunday.”
The conventional wisdom is that Tuesday is voting day due to 1) not wanting to travel on Sunday, and it 2) it would then take most of Monday to travel from to the polling station at the county seat when starting from the outer reaches of the county. Obviously, we no longer need that extra day to travel to the polling station, but Tuesday it has been since the 1800’s.
@ Zeke,
“On a related note, why on earth is election day a workday rather than a weekend (or national holiday?)”
@ Lucia,
“I don’t know why voting happens on weekdays.”
>>In 1845, before Florida, California, and Texas were states or slavery had been abolished, Congress needed to pick a time for Americans to vote. We were an agrarian society. We traveled by horse and buggy. Farmers needed a day to get to the county seat, a day to vote, and a day to get back, without interfering with the three days of worship. So that left Tuesday and Wednesday, but Wednesday was market day. So, Tuesday it was. In 1875 Congress extended the Tuesday date for national House elections and in 1914 for federal Senate elections.
From whytuesday.org
Also,
Zeke brought up 538, but I think Sam Wang’s PEC is also worth visiting. I think, given the interest this blog has in forecasting, betting, statistical models, etc., the audience here might like it.
http://election.princeton.edu/
Ahh! Worship was involved!
Lucia,
Oh, I agree with you that everyone should vote. Even living in California, where the chance of my vote effecting elector selection is about as slim as it could possibly be, I’ll still be at the ballot box.
As far as hour waits go, I’ve been in lines about that long in Manhattan before. Not so much since I moved to San Francisco, since the vast majority of folks vote through mail here (since reading all those propositions in the ballot booth would take forever!).
“He started the job mired in two wars … ”
– Signed the NDAA into law – making it legal to assassinate Americans w/o trial
– Personally oversees a ‘Secret Kill List’
– Waged war on Libya without congressional approval
– Started a covert, drone war in Yemen
– Escalated the proxy war in Somalia
– Escalated the CIA drone war in Pakistan
– Will maintain a presence in Iraq even after “ending” war
– Sharply escalated the war in Afghanistan
– Secretly deployed US special forces to 75 countries
– Sold $30 billion of weapons to the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia
– Signed an agreement for 7 military bases in Colombia
– Opened a military base in Chile
– Continued Bush’s rendition program
http://stpeteforpeace.org/obama.html
You know a Nobel Peace Prize used to mean something …
Zeke–
I think everyone believes Obama will carry his home state of Illinois easily. Obvious, my vote isn’t going to affect that race. But it can affect some of the other races– Congressman, Forest Preserve, judge’s elections etc.
But I thought the “write on your hand” thing was pretty silly. No one is going to write anything simultaneously nuanced and clear on their hand!
We sometimes have different propositions. I always find the wording rather confusing. I have to read those before I get to the ballot box!
“But I thought the “write on your hand†thing was pretty silly. No one is going to write anything simultaneously nuanced and clear on their hand!”
By contrast, I wish as an alternative for voting, we could write an essay on why we would not vote for either candidate. Not having that option I am invoking my civic duty to show my distain for the process by carefully reviewing the positions of the candidates – by reading between the lines – and then proudly being amongst those who are abstaining from voting.
Lucia, are you sure that the President suggested writing on the hand. Could it have been one his daughters? Check that. They are probably too mature for that.
It is pretty easy to vote as the link below indicates. You can even mail it in in 2 states. That makes non voting even more meaningful.
http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/absentee-and-early-voting.aspx
As an aside wasn’t “fire Obama” the Clint Eastwood line. I thought his rambling talk to the empty chair was more imaginative than anything I saw at either convention. I loved the responses from the Hollywood types who usually engage in hero worship – but no more for Clint. And he could care less.
Kenneth,
Hit and Run wrote this
I didn’t do any research to find out if Barack himself said it or … whatever.
Lucia… just wondering.
During your time volunteering at the polls, did you witness any bus loads of suspicious voters showing up? It’s a long drive from Windsor Ontario, so I’d find it hard to believe it would be us conniving Canadians wrecking your system 🙂 Then again, I suppose they’d just go to Detroit.
How are unregistered voters handled in Illinois? IIRC, up here one just shows up with a piece of addressed ID (utility bill will do), swears to it’s accuracy, and then they vote. No big deal.
Any thoughts of foreign leaders interjecting themselves into the American campaign? As a rule, our representatives stay mum on your elections and visa-versa.
In Dupage county? No.
They can’t vote. You must register a certain amount of time prior to balloting.
Do you mean a foreign leader expressing an opinion? That doesn’t bother me. But it might lead to tense relations if the person they were against wins.
Every time somone commits a godwin like this, the baby jebus cries.
“Do you mean a foreign leader expressing an opinion?”
Yes. I would find it offensive. It’s a family affair after all.
cce (Comment #103779)
Sorry for the delay. I don’t find the snippet I referenced, but the gist was along the lines of “Those poor Muslims were sooo put out by that nasty old movie about Muhammad that they got all exercised and …”. OK, I may have added a bit of color.
On the other hand, he and SoS Clinton have changed their stories so often now that I have no clue where he stands for the next 15 minutes.
AJ:
I have to say, this is one of the strangest ideas I’ve heard all week. And I’ve been following the Lewandowsky affair!
Governments interact/interfere with other governments on a regular basis. They have vested interests in the outcomes of any number of elections. Why shouldn’t they express their views? Heck, I’d rather them express their views openly than only through underhanded means.
I get governments try to avoid commenting on other government’s elections, but that’s purely for “practical” reasons. Nobody wants to alienate a candidate that might win. Personally, I think the world would be a lot better off if “practicality” wasn’t used as an excuse so often.
If I was a leader in a country, and I saw a country I cared about considering making a terrible decision, I would speak up.
Brandon, aside from by drunk (and drunker!) Friday night blogging, I don’t find it strange at all. IMHO, overt attempts at manipulation by an outsider can easily backfire. Witness the miraculous “Yes” vote at the Democratic convention (couldn’t they have a showing of hands?).
.
Then again, as Jim would say, people are strange. It would be an interesting case study at the intersection of group and game theory.
.
I find it strange that you find my comments stranger than the Lew affair. Just doing my part to raise the bar I guess 🙂
AJ, it is certainly true “overt attempts at manipulation by an outsider can easily backfire,” but that’s nothing like what you said. You said you “would find it offensive” because “[i]t’s a family affair after all.”
There are all sorts of practical concerns about getting involved in other country’s politics. That doesn’t make it offensive to do so.
In 2004 the Grauniad provided its readers with the addresses of 11,000 residents of Clark County, Ohio so they could snail mail them in an effort to swing the swing state in Kerry’s favor.
Although a some resi(D)ents appreciated the concern of those across the pond, it was less well (R)eceived by most.
http://canisiratus.blogspot.com/2004/10/operation-clark-county-is-glorious.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/13/uselections2004.usa11
Lucia: cute kitty! Properly disdainful of the politicking. NYer cartoon: “Neither party seems to be talking about cats.”
It’s a pity President Obama can’t govern half as well as he can campaign. Heck, I’d settle for a *third*. He being the president we have.
I think Mr. Romney would make a decent President, but he’s an indifferent campaigner at best.
I suppose the Republic will survive in either case — but with a few trillion more dollars of debt if Obama is reelected. And the $5 trillion he’s borrowed (or budgeted) already has had such wonderfully beneficial effects on our economy…..
Carrick,
My point was that the reduction in GDP has, in fact, been long lived and drastic–a ten point swing and a continued depressed economy for four years and counting. As long as the economy is depressed and taxes remain near modern lows, spending will be high and revenue will be low. If politicians considered the debt to be the most important thing (which they do not, regardless of what they say), all they need to do is . . . nothing. The Bush tax cuts expire. The payroll tax cuts expire. The “Doc Fix” doesn’t get fixed. The Sequester goes through. Problem solved, except that a huge portion of the economy evaporates over night, and we go into another Depression. Which is why it won’t happen (although some of it will).
With respect to the credit of the US, the global bond market (which is the only opinion that matters) considers US bonds to be the safest investment on earth, and is currently paying to loan the US money. The only thing they want to see is a plan to contain the deficit in the long term. They don’t care about trillion dollar deficits which would exist no matter who is president, and they prove this every day.
cce, it’s not a 10 point negative swing measured in total GDP (real or unadjusted):
year total_gdp real_gdp
2007.00 0.0 0.0
2007.25 1.6 0.9
2007.5 2.7 1.6
2007.75 3.6 2.1
2008.00 3.7 1.6
2008.25 4.8 1.9
2008.5 4.6 1.0
2008.75 2.3 -1.3
2009.00 1.2 -2.6
2009.25 0.9 -2.7
2009.5 1.4 -2.4
2009.75 2.7 -1.4
2010.00 3.7 -0.8
2010.25 4.8 -0.3
2010.5 5.9 0.4
2010.75 7.1 1.0
2011.00 7.7 1.0
2011.25 9.0 1.6
2011.5 10.2 1.9
2011.75 11.4 2.9
2012.00 12.5 3.4
2012.25 13.4 3.9
Regarding our credit rating, it is wrecking confidence in our financial instruments, and people are…or were switching to other countries, until they realized they were even in worse condition.
So it’s not like we’re a hot commodity, finance wise, it’s more like others are worse.
Carrick,
GDP increases year over year due to inflation, population growth and technological advancement (“productivity”). This is natural and expected. If this compound growth wasn’t expected, a mattress would be just as good as the stock market.
If you look at this growth since the end of WWII, the economy is about 5% below where it would otherwise be, from a starting point of a bubble 5% above where it should have been. Government expenditures and revenues are a function of the economy, so when you go from “sugar high” to “hangover,” it has a big effect on the finances of a country.
Also, if you are referring to the S&P downgrade, they (and the other credit agencies) want a plan to address the medium and long term debt.
http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563
cce (Comment #103907)
Did you read the numbers Carrick posted? There is no 10% swing in GDP, no matter how you look at it.
.
With regard to deficits: Even with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, and even with the impending sequester (neither of which will actually happen, except for increased tax rates on people making over ~$200K, and higher capital gains rates) there will remain huge deficits which are only going to become larger, and the ever growing burden of debt compounds the problem. There are long term unfunded liabilities at local, state, and Federal levels which can’t be paid, regardless of income tax rates (unless you plan on wholesale confiscation of private wealth and reductions in long term retirement obligations, either directly or via rapid inflation). The point is a simple one: our expenditures are too large and growing. Our debts are too large and growing catastrophically. Those trajectories must change if we want to avoid a fiscal meltdown.
cce, I posted real in additional to actual gdp figures. Neither one of these have a “10-point swing”. It’s not a shock you have a period of negative growth during a recession, that’s it’s definition. Of course you can’t look at 5-year intervals with economies to work out long-term trends any more than you can look at 10-year periods in climate to work out long-term climate trends (well not without having to deal with substantial uncertainty that is).
SteveF:
Yep and that’s my point too. If you look at our spending before TARP and after, it’s a step-function not a blip. TARP was supposed to be a one-off increase. People who are saying Obama only raised spending by $200 billion are doing so by equating the one-time TARP spending with long-term spending. Obama also reduced taxes in ways that were almost guaranteed not to produce economic growth (1-2 years isn’t long enough for people to make any changes, even short term, in spending habits).
And much of Obama’s ARRA investment probably will see long-term benefits, but there is no way spending billions on basic research (which naturally I favor as a good long-term strategy) is going to have an immediate stimulus on the economy.
I understand even Michael Mann got some funds from ARRA ($1.9 million for effects of “environmental temperature on the transmission of vector-borne diseases”). While it’s a good topic, it’s not where the funding should be focussed, IMO.
Carrick,
Here’s a fun fact which won’t be discussed leading up to the election: The Chevy Volt costs (including engineering and investments) somewhere near $65K per copy to produce, and with GM’s current incentives for promoting sales, yields a net selling price of about $33K… GM is taking a loss of ~$32K per car (on the order of $1 billion this year). Since we, the taxpayers, are on the hook for about $25 billion in GM (and also effectively control it’s actions), why are we putting up with such a stupid product? Heck, why are we on the hook for $25 billion? I can see no rational justification for either.
Honest progressives want to know, how do we reign in spending after we vote for our guy in November? 🙂
(seriously)
And don’t tell me to vote for the other guy. Won’t happen.
BillC:
Start by gutting NASA and all of that other useless spending so we can increase how much people receive on Medicare.
Because that’s what sustainable growth looks like.
Seriously if you are a progressive, how do you reconcile “socially responsible spending” with that great evil of the progressive movement, “profits”?
SteveF, I’d have to see where your figures came from on the Volt.
There’s been enough “viral email” facts on the Volt, it almost qualifies as a “concerted disinformation campaign”.
(You know, sort of like a series of papers by Michael Mann. /poke)
Carrick,
Re: Chevy Volt, see:
http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/09/22/2306002/gm-offers-big-discounts-to-boost.html
In any case, the car is a stupid waste of money.
Carrick,
I don’t think I support that idea. I also don’t think it’s going to happen, no matter who wins the election.
Hm. Maybe I’m not a progressive. Here’s what I think. “Socially responsible spending” could mean a lot of things, and I don’t think profits are evil. I googled “socially responsible spending” and didn’t get any good hits, though some stuff led to “corporate social responsibility” which I am familiar with, though somewhat dubious about. In general, I am dubious about the importance of corporations in general, though don’t interpret that to mean I favor some sort of anarchy. I consistently score “economic liberal, social libertarian” on the Political Compass, though I suspect the questions are rigged 😉 (OK, I am forced to answer “no” to a lot of things I believe are partially true).
It does seem a shame to me that having read through this post, there is more of a political party = AGW stance alignment than I thought. Pielke Jr. and Tom Fuller are perhaps the best examples of people who share most of my political and AGW views.
More later if you want….
SteveF,
I used to think all electric cars were a horrible idea. Now I think that it’s a good idea to get a variety of different prototypes on the road in large enough numbers to generate some useful statistics. I don’t think that’s the same as the Volt story. Maybe in a few decades we’ll have a better idea how to do it.
Tom Fuller,
The idea that BHO “saved” Michigan, would be laughable if so many people were not so ignorant of reality that it can pass as received wisdom. All he did was to delay the structured bankruptcy (and violate 100 years of law) in order to take from one group, bondholders who are by law first in line, mainly very non-wealthy pensioners I might add, and give the money stolen to his paymasters at the UAW, who beyond a thousand or so per member are legally unsecured. This perversion of the law is one of the main reasons companies in your once great, now broke country will not invest……because the laws which are designed to encourage such investments may be suspended by executive fiat.
SteveF, I’m not a fan of the Volt, but I find myself skeptical of the study used to compute costs of the vehicle.
Here’s a really simple, dumb calculation to show you just how stupid it is to buy a car:
1) invest $2 billion in the development of the new car.
2) assume only one gets sold, for $40,000.
3) Therefore for the company is subsidizing the cost of the car for $1,999,960,000.
Alternative Universe:
First car costs $2 billion + 40,000
All of the other vehicles sold at cost + 30%.
Put another way, when companies pick a price point for a vehicle or any other product, they spread the costs of development across the projected number sold, not just the first vehicle, or even the first years sales.
I think that’s about what that “analyst” did in arriving at his high-ball number.
(Again I’m not going to argue the merits of that car, I think that analyst was incompetent. I also don’t expect a goliath like GM to be able to price competitively design and build new car technology in any case. It probably costs them $100,000,000 just to pick the name of the car. /slightlytongueincheek )
“It currently costs GM “at least” $75,000 to build the Volt, including development costs, Munro said. That’s nearly twice the base price of the Volt before a $7,500 federal tax credit provided as part of President Barack Obama’s green energy policy.
Other estimates range from $76,000 to $88,000, according to four industry consultants contacted by Reuters. The consultants’ companies all have performed work for GM and are familiar with the Volt’s development and production. They requested anonymity because of the sensitive nature of their auto industry ties.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/10/us-generalmotors-autos-volt-idUSBRE88904J20120910
“Discounted leases as low as $199 a month helped propel Volt sales in August to 2,831, pushing year-to-date sales to 13,500, well below the 40,000 cars that GM originally had hoped to sell in 2012.”
But you know, if you lose 40,000 per car you can make that up in volume by leasing the car for 200$ per month… can’t you?
BillC:
Or your definition doesn’t match the definition used by some other progressives. (The Occupy Wall Street bunch for example.)
Maybe they’re the ones who aren’t actually progressives. Maybe they’re just nuts.
Actually I do think corporations should often adopt a less amoral stance, if for no other reason than a generalization of the principle that you don’t defecate where you eat.
I realize it doesn’t bother the investors if the company dies—they just switch where their investments are put—but from a corporate lifespan viewpoint, it should be the business of the corporate officers to keep the company in business and in good standing.
Carrick,
I am aware of how development costs are (at least in theory) diluted over vast sales volumes…. the problem here is that the vast sales volumes haven’t materialized, and worse, at the discounted prices, it seems unlikely that GM can recover even it’s marginal costs, never mind recover sunk costs. It is the kind of project that in normal companies would lead to wholesale firings and an effort to cut losses. Not going to happen at the ‘New’ GM.
SteveF, in order to work out whether GMs “discounted” price is reasonable, we’d have to look at their projected number of sales.
Whether their projections work out is for the market to decide of course.
By the way SteveF, I don’t have any doubt you understand how pricing works.
OTH, I do doubt the sincerity of almost every financial analyst out there. I always assume they have an economic incentive (or sometimes political incentive, which if you’re working for an advocacy group is pretty much the same thing, since they’re paying your salary). Used car salespeople and financial analysts are pretty much interchangeable in my head. That may be unfair to the car salespeople.
Carrick,
No matter how low-life financial analysts may be, the cost to produce a Chevy Volt is for sure much higher than a conventional car, independent of investment/research costs. In addition, my understanding is that the high efficiency gasoline engine that is on board for when the battery runs out after 40 miles or so requires premium (high octane) fuel, adding further to operating costs. Would anyone in their right mind drop an extra $10K (current prices) to $20K (MSRP) to drive around in a car which saves you a few dollars a day in fuel? (OK, maybe the extremely politically correct would.) But it is hard to see a rational financial motivation. I rather suspect extreme smugness inside the passenger compartment actually causes internal fogging of the windows with BS, which is then difficult to clean; and even once cleaned, it keeps coming back! Toys for the rich. 😉
SteveF – I wonder how many private individuals would drive such a car. I suspect that the tax regime in the UK encourages companies to push “eco” cars on the workers entitled to company cars. It is only once you leave the environs of the big corporation that most people in the UK realise how expensive things such as insurance and depreciation, sometimes even fuel, really are. A company car user – especially if he/she gets fuel paid for as well – can opt for a Volt and feel happy at “saving” the planet…unaware that the company is getting large tax reliefs. Do the same things happen in the US?
diogenes 103941,
” Do the same things happen in the US?”
Donno… I hope not, but you never know.
BillC (Comment #103920)
September 24th, 2012 at 8:45 am
” Maybe in a few decades we’ll have a better idea how to do it.”
—————————————–
Toyota already knows how to do much of it – Prius family. Outstanding quality and mileage and range.
“Toyota already knows how to do much of it – Prius family. Outstanding quality and mileage and range.”
Watch out, Owen. You may displace Steven Mosher as Salesman of The Year. 😉
Andrew
SteveF, if it helps you any, I don’t any plans to buy a Volt .. ever.
OTH, if I had the money, maybe a Tesla Roadster….
Lucia is it your cat on the picture ?
I have been away a long time but I seem to remember that you had not a Turc of Van.
Below is the reaction of mine when I asked them what they thought about Obama.
http://www.screex.com/b_z0SnKdXXnle.jpg