Posts
A quick update on the Rasmussen polling results for Obama, which I've been tracking for over a year now. While Obama's overall approval rating a few months ago was a bit worse than it is today, I think the charts show that satisfaction with Obama has been on the decline since day one. Moreover, Rasmussen also finds that 63% of U.S. voters now favor the repeal of Obamacare, while only 32% oppose repeal. This is the highest level of opposition to date.
My guess is that cap and trade will not be successful. There are too many competing constituencies, and too much controversy surrounding the larger issue of global warming, for this to be successful. Plus, cap and trade essentially boils down to a big tax on carbon-based energy sources, and this is not exactly the sort of thing the economy needs right now. Add these considerations to the growing numbers of those who not only dislike but oppose Obama's initiatives, and you have a recipe for gridlock, even before the November elections.
With the exception of the $200 billion bill that Congress is trying to pass this week (which contains some tax hikes and extensions of popular tax breaks), we are unlikely to see more economy-damaging legislation this year, and that is good.
21 comments:
Scott,
I agree gridlock is bullish for our markets...and likely for our economy also. I have not seen numbers to support this but I suspect that a majority of business owners would experience a lift in confidence if it (gridlock) occured.
Scott,
Unfortunately, I'd say don't underestimate Obama and the rest of the don't-have-a-clue idiots. Against what I thought were tough odds, they did enact Obamacare.
Hoping you're right on cap-and-trade though, don't get me wrong.
I'm waiting for a "November 2010: real change" bumper sticker. Should be a very interesting election and hopefully one for the history books.
My concern is the interim period between this November and January 2011. Defeated Democrats will have nothing to hold them back from voting for an onslaught of socialist legislation, and victorious Democrat incumbents will have at least 2 years for the wagon-pulling public to forget how they were ripped off yet again.
I think we see a Palin-Bachman ticket in 2012. Gonna be a barn-burner of an election, maybe the ugliest of all time.
They called Abraham Lincoln an "ape" and called him the "vile excretum of the Republican Party."
That may all sound tame by the time we hit 2012.
Mr. Grannis:
“Obama is surely aware of his fading popularity and weakened influence, but instead of moving to the center to shore up his support, he seems to want to add yet another "accomplishment" (likely cap and trade legislation) before prematurely becoming a lame duck (likely following the November elections).”
It may well be that your observation of ‘…Obama is surely aware of his fading popularity and weakened influence, but instead of moving to the center to shore up his support, he seems to want to add yet another "accomplishment“…’ is more related to the “vision” of the anointed/intelligentsia rather than any attempt to increase popularity.
That the vision of the anointed/intelligentsia aka “the way things ought to be” is the over riding factor for Obama. In Obama’s case he is not an intellectual of any renown in any particular field of expertise. In other words, he is not a renowned expert in one field stepping out of that field to become a public intellectual in non related fields e.g. Krugman. Obama is the non-intellectual intellectual.
Obama’s non-intellectual intellectual status finds its basis in “the vision” of others and not his own vision. Get Obama away from his teleprompter and into a real discussion and he stumbles over the components of “the vision” he expounds as he only knows the “vision” of other intellectuals and takes the vision at it face value and has never studied, questioned, analyzed what makes up the vision. Obama is like the messenger who has instructions to deliver but has not idea of the construct of the instructions.
Hence the “vision” is paramount even though he doesn’t really know how he arrived at the “vision”. The vision can’t possibly be unpopular because he is so sold on the vision. If the vision is unpopular Obama merely believes the message of the vision has not been properly presented. That the people are not properly informed. Then the vision is repackaged and remarketed in a series of speeches using political divisive issues complete with Orwell’s Newspeak trying to politically communicate the “vision“.
I guess we can focus on politics to get our mind off of the markets....
Cabodog is right. Obama keeps sinking but somehow we keep getting destructive legislation passed.
Rasmussen polling really that's your benchmark! Hey if you want to talk among yourself knock yourself out, but Rasmussen has always had an agenda. It is foolish to take their analysis at face value -- they had PA-12 going to the Republicans until about 3 weeks before the pols, and then they withdrew from surveying the match-up.
Bad data is bad data, even if you like the outcome. The November contest will be interesting, but probably not with the narrative you hope. I'm not saying that the Dems will do well, but what is happening on the ground is fascinating. Mr. Paul's victory in KY has many implications for the GOP, some good some bad. Elections are won by attracting the middle, not by antagonizing it, many may agree privately with Paul's world views, but many more will find (especially among independents) these hard to stomach. IF they hate the Dems but cannot abide by the GOP, they may stay home in November...
That would be a disaster. I view Rasmussen as I view S&P and Moodys, they will give you the opinion you want, not the one your investors may need!
Finally, the "no" crowd got "bitch slapped" in PA-12. This is probably the most important warning to the GOP -- hopefully they will pay head.
Scott,
Your Tea Party crowd is turning into a group of fringe loony tunes. When Sarah Palin comes out to defend you (sorry Rand), you know the game is likely over.
Once again though, the discussions digress from the real issue of solvency. This is not about Obama or Tea Biscuits, it is a crisis of solvency. But the left, right, center, or this blog don't seem to get it.
When someone starts addressing solvency in earnest, the markets will react positively. Until then, you can throw as many tea parties over Obamacare as you like but it won't make a dent in the problem.
Public Library: I agree with you. Neither party, nor the new Tea Party (if it is a party) is offering tough solutions to moutning debt.
Case in point: Rand Paul wants to represent Kentucky. I actually support Paul.
Still, Kentucky gets back more than $1.50 for every dollar it sends to Washingon, DC. (Source: Right-wing Tax Foundation).
New Mexico
$2.03
1
Mississippi
$2.02
2
Alaska
$1.84
3
Louisiana
$1.78
4
West Virginia
$1.76
5
North Dakota
$1.68
6
Alabama
$1.66
7
South Dakota
$1.53
8
Kentucky
$1.51
9
Virginia
$1.51
10
Montana
$1.47
11
Hawaii
$1.44
12
Maine
$1.41
13
Arkansas
$1.41
14
Oklahoma
$1.36
15
South Carolina
$1.35
16
Missouri
$1.32
17
Maryland
$1.30
18
It amounts to a federal per capita subsidy exceeding $5,000 (current budget) for that state. Is that not astonishing?
So Paul goes to DC, hoping to do good. He wants to cut the federal budget--except to do so brings ruin to his state. and his constituents.
So, he joins the bloc of other rural Senators, and he campaigns long and hard against the federal government--and advocates tax cuts.
Cutting spending--well, we can talk abut that later. First, starve the beast. And maybe, "deficits don't matter" (a Reagan mantra).
The best hope we have is a D-Party Prezzy and an R-Party Congress.
Clinton rposped federal surpluses, and the Congress acquieced. That was the best arrangement so far.
Doesn't the merger of 4 Spanish banks sound eerily similar to the failed 4 bank merger in 1930 in NY, including the Bank of United States, which ignited a run on deposits.
You can't hide insolvency forever. Even Bernie Madoff figured that out eventually.
"Still, Kentucky gets back more than $1.50 for every dollar it sends to Washingon, DC. (Source: Right-wing Tax Foundation)."
Benji, since you're such a big fan of the Tax Foundation:
The distribution of federal taxing and spending is mostly driven by tax burdens, not the ability of lawmakers to divert spending to their home states.
Yes, the "tax-the-rich" crowd is complaining about having to lay in the bed they themselves made.
Benji: In conservative states, we often have hordes of the parasitic welfare types who, like you, voted for Obama. Thus, while the majority of voters in "red states" may vote Republican, there is a substantial minority of people who are looking for their "Obama money" handout. So, there really is no inconsistency here. Thanks for trying though. So, drop your support for the Socialist In Chief and you would be SO much more persuasive complaining about federal spending.
Bill-
From the Tax Foundation 207:
October 9, 2007
Federal Taxing and Spending Benefit Some States, Leave Others Paying Bill
New Mexico gets $2 for every dollar in taxes, New Jersey only 61 cents
For more information, contact: Nate Bailey at (202) 464-5102.
WASHINGTON, D.C., October 9, 2007-Some states feast at the expense of others, according to the Tax Foundation's latest annual analysis of federal taxing and spending patterns.
Using newly released Fiscal Year 2005 spending data from the Census Bureau's annual Consolidated Federal Funds Report, the Tax Foundation compared the federal tax burden in each state with the amount of federal spending in each state. The result is a ranking of which states got the best deal in 2005 from Uncle Sam's tax and spending policies.
"All taxpayers know that the federal government uses tax and spending policy to redistribute income from citizens with high incomes to those who make little," said study author Curtis Dubay, a Tax Foundation economist. "Citizens are less aware of geographically based income redistribution."
Hey, I say every state should get back what it gives to DC. Plain and simple, and balances the budget.
Given your concerns regarding the distribution of tax dollars, are you in favor of reducing the tax burden generally? After all, if the government takes less it has less to misspend.
Bill-
If you are still reading, I enjoy your comments,
Yes, I have posted here that I think federal outlays should be limited to 16-18 percent of GDP, and then we can fight like roosters over how to spend it.
I think by whacking the USDA, the Department of Education, Commerce, and cutting military outlays in half, we could get down to 16 percent of GDP.
One oddity about the R-Party: In general, they do not like rich people subsidizing poor people. But the progressive federal income tax results in rich states subsidizing poor, weakling parasite states, and the R-Party likes that--they are all rural Republican states that get subsidized.
That is why the R-Party offers such a poor hope of ever balancing the budget.
I suspect rural America would just about empty out without federal aid, constantly and growing every year.
It makes our nation weaker to do this, and costs taxpayers money.
"But the progressive federal income tax results in rich states subsidizing poor, weakling parasite states, and the R-Party likes that--they are all rural Republican states that get subsidized."
what color is the sky in your world, Benji? it's your beloved Democrats who shout "tax the rich!" from the rooftops.
Paul-
If you watch the drama onstage, and not the action behind the scenes, you will duped.
"If you watch the drama onstage, and not the action behind the scenes, you will duped."
you gotta be kidding. do you have a shred of evidence for this conspiracy, the largest head fake in the history of civilization? How do the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, the Clinton tax hikes, square with this bizarro world proclamation of yours?
Easy. Just look at the supertankers of Red Ink every Republican't president since Eisenhower has proposed.
There was a reason people called Reagan the "closet Keynesian."
And the Bushes? Where were their balanced budgets?
Paul, in many regards you remind me of Charlie Brown, as he prepares to kick the football that Lucy inevitably pulls away. Each year he believes she will not do it. Each year she does.
If some guy wears a flap lapel pin and brutes about national security and cutting fat and calls for strict construction of the Constitution, mostly likely you will vote for him.
Hey, you have been voting for him since 1959. Why would you stop now?
After getting fooled for about 50 years, I decided enough was enough.
Lucy, I do not believe you anymore.
Go hold the ball in front of Paul.
Post a Comment