The Most Important 2012 Campaign Number Of The Day: 3.6

Check Goldman’s record on currency calls for this year. In October called for a sharp decline in the dollar–US dollar had one of its strongest months ever.
.
“If these projections hold, which is a big if, Barack Obama will enter the polls in 2012 with GDP growth of 2.7% and 3.6%, which looks a lot like what Bill Clinton enjoyed”

Thanks to a Republican-controlled Congress.

Finished the last sentence for you

- barf barf hearl -
·
The congress has been democratically controlled as well as the presidency for the last two years, and you want to give credit for this to republicans?
·
I’m only sick, because it’ll probably work

I doubt it. Historically midterm elections and presidential reelections are referendums on the sitting president.

Here’s to hoping Michael, but if freep is making this argument today, how long until fox picks up and then everybody else?
·
“Look!” they’ll say, “The magical Republican wizards have turned the economy around. See, here’s the point on the graph when the economy got better, its right after we took control of the house.”
·
I don’t want to be this cynical, but if these last two years have proved anything, it is that the truth is based entirely on perspective. If Obama manages to get credit for the economy turning around, I’ll be happy, but I doubt it’ll happen. And why can it happen?

George H. W. Bush had -.23% and 3.4%. (He lost.)

Because their are viewpoints that sometimes matter more than the economy to voters, and Obama hasn’t done a great job owning the economic transition; but beyond that, he’s lost support on almost every other front.

I suppose he has two years to establish a new narrative. And maybe it will be “Yes we did!” And maybe it will work. But to a bunch of people its going to sound hollow when stacked against everything we didn’t do and some of the things we did poorly.

gumOnShoe, All the economy needed to know was that Republicans were in charge now. That was enough for the economy to get off its lazy butt, get off of government handouts, and get out there and get itself a job!
.
Now, as long as the economy doesn’t get sick and need any socialist-run health ‘care’, everything should be fine. Until the liberals come and screw things up again, anyway. That’s why Real America needs conservatives. Because liberals have proved once again that they can’t solve a problem unless they created it.

Here’s to modern satire. It’s funny because, ironically, it’s true.

I wonder if you’re not over-concentrating on the GDP number. Goldman projects unemployment at 8.5% at the end of 2012 — that’s extraordinarily high.

Now it’s true that Clinton and W Bush won re-election with GDP numbers that look like Obama’s but only Reagan in 1984 won re-election with 8% unemployment. For both Clinton and for George W. Bush unemployment was below 6% throughout the year of their re-elections.

One could look back to Reagan and say that it means Obama can be re-elected with unemployment that high and I guess that’s true. But Reagan’s 8% was in an era where that number, while high, was not entirely unusually high. It had reached that level a few times during the 70s and peaked around 10%.

We’re facing an era where people got used to < 5% unemployment. It peaked at 11.5% so maybe 8.5% will strike people in 2012 as pretty good. But I think the people expect more and that they definitely expect more. None of which is to say whether or not I think Obama will be re-elected. I just think there's another number at least as important as GDP and that 3% growth with 4% unemployment is a lot more appealing to voters than 3% growth with 8.5% unemployment.

Actually, Goldman says it for me:

“We are not saying that the economy will feel good from a “Main Street” perspective. As
already noted, we only expect a gradual decline in unemployment as growth moves above trend, to
9¼% by the end of 2011 and 8½% by the end of 2012. This is still very high by any absolute
standard and far above our 5½% estimate of the structural unemployment rate.”

Main Street is where the voting happens.

Y’know, this is a pretty good catch & post by Michael Scherer, but this is an extremely important caveat.

Of course. When the economy does well, it’s always the result of Republicans somewhere, but when the economy does poorly, it’s always the result of Democrats somewhere.
.
A couple months ago, either you or one of the other Rusty personalities was blaming the economic meltdown in the last two years of Bush’s watch to the fact that Democrats took over Congress.
.
Once again, thanks for reneging on our bet and sticking around to remind us all what class acts most conservatives are these days.

Unless half the Republicans switch parties I don’t know who Obama thinks is going to vote for him.

but if freep is making this argument today, how long until fox picks up and then everybody else?
.
Please. If freep is making this argument, that means it’s already out there on the Glorious Republican Pravda Network.
.
He’s never had an original thought in his life. And I’m not just saying that because he’s one of Rusty’s split personalities.

Hm.. now lets look at the deficit and growth.

13 trillion in national debt -
2 trillion from All United States presidents combined before Reagan.
2 trillion in 8 years under Reagan caused by his tax cuts
1 trillion under Bush Sr. he raised taxes
0 under Clinton because he raised taxes a little more
5 trillion under Bush caused by huge tax cuts and wars
1 trillion for bank bailouts and recovery act started under Bush and Finished under Obama.
2 trillion under Obama because he has not repealed Bush tax cuts yet and the finishing up of the wars.

All the tax cuts are bleeding America Dry.

Bush Jr. got his huge tax cuts through because he used the reconciliation process that blocked democratic filibuster. He rammed it down our throats.

Clinton raised taxes without a single republican vote.

HW Bush raised taxes with democratic support.

Reagan lowered taxes with some democratic support because under Nixon and Carter the top tax rate was 70%. When Reagan first lowered taxes it helped stimulate the economy. 70% was too high. He lowered it to 49% for the top earners and that seems to be the “sweet spot”. He then lowered taxes more to 35% for the rich and that started the great deficit spike. He raised taxes 8 more times.. a tiny bit at a time.. to curtail his massive deficit spending with help of democrats.. but his rates were still too low.

49% for top earners is what Clinton raised taxes too.
again, it was the “sweet spot”. Economic growth and balancing deficit is found at 49% tax rate for top earners.

Both Reagan and Clinton proved that. Anything lower in tax cuts for the top earners starts to bleed our country out and starts a deficit nose dive.

49% is not a magical number though. I would put money on the fact that that number changes with the amount of money held by the top 1%.
·
If wages were more balanced, 49% would mean a significantly different amount of money than it does when just a few people are earning the most.
·
And, debt is heavily reliant on expenditures, including war. It is undeniably true that taxes affect how much of our yearly expenses can be paid for. But it isn’t the whole picture.
·
It would be safe to say that lowering taxes without changing the budge or by changing the budge to include more expenses would be a recipe for expanding the debt, which your data shows. It would be wrong to claim it was entirely reliant on tax rates.

Hmm. Now let’s send that information to every MSM and require them to publish every week for the next two years.