Election Game Week

100 replies!

On fire!

 

Clinton's political history is the proof.

 

I should vote to win?

I should vote against someone?

I should vote to tow a party line?

I shouldn't vote principle?

 

Psssssssssssst................................Clinton's political history

 

If you believe in Keynesian economics, you do it. Clinton seems to believe in it, at least publicly. You can't extrapolate anything from the 90's when we were exceeding projected revenue and had a rapidly expanding economy with unemployment under 5%.

I'll go with IP here, despite the silly statement about "believing a lie" or whatever it was.

That said, the supply of money floating around in the economy is 6X as much as it was in 2007 thanks to all the stimuli. If banks ever get in the mood to start lending again, you will see unprecedented inflation in this country. Right now, all that money is on the sidelines, but if a sector gets hot (i.e. tech, housing) look out, and pray for the people who are on fixed incomes.

 

Any thing?

Come on now................

 

Keynes said to run surpluses in good times and deficits in bad. I don't see anything in the 90's inconsistent with that.

 

I understand, we are talking two seperate items now.

 

I may not be following you OE (and admittedly I wasn't following politics or economics closely during the Clinton administration), but to me, deficit spending=stimulus. So I don't think we're talking about two separate items.

Again, I may be missing your point.

 

I cant open the thread but maybe this will work.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/332461/ohio-counts-so-waits-nation-john-fund

My wife received an absentee ballot from her hometown in Ohio under her maiden name and we both received absentee ballots from our old house address.

Going into the 3rd year of not living in Ohio.

 

Anything out of Clinton's mouth would have a whole hell of a lot more chance of being legitimate concerning his own opinions than something any random person of a different political ideology had to say on the matter. Basing one's opinion about his true feelings on a lie he said to save his own ass in a completely unrelated, non-policy area is ridiculous. OE has no way of knowing that Clinton doesn't actually mean the words he has repeatedly said, except if he can read minds.

Applying the same logic to Romney ironically makes him a pro-choice, pro-regulation, pro-health care wild-eyed RINO with donkey ears.

But feel free to just invent your own interpretation of my post I guess. It probably makes for more amusing threads.

 

whaaa? keynes was very anti deficits. he'd roll over in his grave if he knew obama was implying he'd be on board with our debt load.

 

clinton let greenspan flood the market with cash which absolutely isn't a keyensian approach. ANd let's face it. Clinton benefited from the biggest job bubble in american history (the internet boom) and it had just started to go right when he took office. now bill didn't spend like crazy, i'll give him credit for that (though he did still increase spending during his term). but the surplus had very little to do with his politics. that isn't to say i think he was a bad president, just that the tech boom was a one in a generation event that just happened to hit when he was in office.

i'm failing to see the connection between bank lending and inflation. care to explain that?

 

So what you are saying is you agree Clinton probably isn't lying when he says he believes the surplus was the right call?

 

No. Bill went the monetary policy route, obama went the fiscal route. I can't see bill being stupid enough to blow that kind of money on special interests bs. He might have spent a crapload of money like obama, but no way is it going to the same places. comparing obama and clinton when it comes to economic knowledge is like comparing a 1st grader to a college graduate.

 

I've taken quite an interest in poll watching over the years, especially trying to understand trends and likely outcomes. As it stands, I upped my idea of tomorrow's outcome to 303-235 for Obama with me feeling more confident that Virginia will turn for Obama. Florida will be a mess and anybody's guess, while North Carolina is clearly going for Romney as much as Pennsylvania will for Obama. I do think that a key aspect of the vote tomorrow for Obama will be his strong support from the Hispanic community, which is a rapidly growing population the republicans are quickly losing if they don't change some of their policies. Romney may benefit, though, from Puerto Ricans and Cubans in Florida not affected by immigration issues.

Obama will win a small majority of the popular vote, although I'm less confident in that. One of the biggest reasons he wouldn't would be a lack of pushing for votes in big Democratic centers in places like California. I think Obama has about 277 electoral votes solidly locked up without anything unusual happening tomorrow, although its tight enough that lower turnout in certain areas could be a problem. I doubt it, though, as the Obama folks have shown a pretty good GOTV effort.

I still remain nervous.

 

Aaaaaahhhhh, still wont let me in

 

John Maynard Keynes: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

 

Is this a two way street or is the pot black?

 

Keynes believed in using every tool at the govt.'s disposal. Have you read "A General Theory..."? I have (well mostly--it's pretty dry.)