Which loser will drop out of the GOP field next?

[George Whorewell]

And how do you know that the stimulus was not big enough? How do you know that it worked and that without it, things would have been worse?

Because if you examine it theoretically; the idea of fiscal stimulus makes no sense. All that it amounts to is taking water from one end of the pool and pouring it into the other end. Every dollar the government borrows in order to deficit spend is a dollar that is not in the private economy.

End of thread.

Our brain dead Kenyan swindler in chief and the rest of you brainwashed shit stains either don't comprehend basic economics or you think destroying the American economy is evidence that Keynesian economics work.

Unless you have monopoly money ( which our currency is turning into anyway) or are examining the theory in a classroom, Keynesian economics is a complete and utter farce. 

[LurkerNoMore]

So Perry is gone.

Who will be the next loser to drop out?  As long as Newt is still in the running, he is splitting the votes that Santorum needs to pull ahead in a decisive fashion.

[Straw Man]

We're in the weakest post-recession recovery since the Great Depression. That doesn't seem like good evidence of the stimulus "working."

this recession is unique in that you had a worldwide collapse of the financial system coupled with a collapse in RE values worldwide (and with many different countries exposed to fraudulent RE debt in this countrytoo) that we have never seen before (and which was caused in large part by lack of regulation of the financial markets)

At present there are more $$$'s sitting on the sidelines (private economy) not being invested than ever before

what good is it going to do to give even more tax breaks to the uber wealthy so they can sit on even more idle money?

[Dos Equis]

Santorum is next.  If Newt does not win SC and gets drubbed in FL, he'll probably quit.  I doubt he has the money to win FL or compete much outside of FL.  Paul will probably stay in until the end, like he did in 08.

[Straw Man]

Santorum is next.  If Newt does not win SC and gets drubbed in FL, he'll probably quit.  I doubt he has the money to win FL or compete much outside of FL. Paul will probably stay in until the end, like he did in 08.

true - he's got the money and he's alreayd said he's not running for re-election and this is more about idealogy for him than anything else

[MCWAY]

Santorum is next.  If Newt does not win SC and gets drubbed in FL, he'll probably quit.  I doubt he has the money to win FL or compete much outside of FL.  Paul will probably stay in until the end, like he did in 08.

So far, it's (after further review) Santorum winning Iowa; Romney won New Hampshire; and South Carolina is on deck.

And, since it's no longer winner-take-all, Santorum can hang with Romney and Gingrich, if he does well in SC.

[240 is Back]

plus, what if ron paul stays in it... and for some reason, the frontrunner romney has to pull out.

some scandal or whatever which the delegates deem unacceptable.  

Ron paul would be sitting pretty at #2.  It woudl be crazy for him not to stay in it until the end.  Newt as well, actually.

[howardroark]

this recession is unique in that you had a worldwide collapse of the financial system coupled with a collapse in RE values worldwide (and with many different countries exposed to fraudulent RE debt in this countrytoo) that we have never seen before (and which was caused in large part by lack of regulation of the financial markets)

At present there are more $$$'s sitting on the sidelines (private economy) not being invested than ever before

what good is it going to do to give even more tax breaks to the uber wealthy so they can sit on even more idle money?

And why do you think that there is more money sitting on the sidelines than ever before? Because of uncertainty. This uncertainty is caused by several things:
1. All of the bailouts and stimuli have kept poorly managed businesses from bankruptcy. However, that is ultimately unsustainable and the market realizes it, so people are keeping their money on the sidelines and waiting for the market to finally clear.
2. The federal government has been pumping out harmful regulations like there is no tomorrow. This makes businesses reluctant to invest for fear of a future regulation taking away their profitability.
3. The massive debt and deficits indicate that future tax increases are on the horizon. Thus, businesses are reluctant to invest because they know their profits will be taxed away.

[Dos Equis]

So far, it's (after further review) Santorum winning Iowa; Romney won New Hampshire; and South Carolina is on deck.

And, since it's no longer winner-take-all, Santorum can hang with Romney and Gingrich, if he does well in SC.

Santorum could stay, although if he comes in third in SC, and he's being realistic, he should quit.  I don't think he has the money to compete either.   

[MCWAY]

Santorum could stay, although if he comes in third in SC, and he's being realistic, he should quit.  I don't think he has the money to compete either.   

He didn't have that much money in Iowa. Yet, he won there.

[howardroark]

He didn't have that much money in Iowa. Yet, he won there.

He benefited from a last-minute surge - the same kind of surge that benefited Bachmann, then Perry, then Newt... see what I'm getting at here?

Honestly, Santorum is not in a position to be running a national campaign. No money, no real support. He should drop out after SC. Newt at least has enough money and support to possibly pull off a last-minute win in SC, something that could give him momentum.

[Dos Equis]

He didn't have that much money in Iowa. Yet, he won there.

True.  He also spent more time there than any other candidate.  He went to every county in Iowa.  Grassroots campaigning works.  The problem is he doesn't have the time or money to do that in SC and definitely not in FL or beyond. 

[Straw Man]

And why do you think that there is more money sitting on the sidelines than ever before? Because of uncertainty. This uncertainty is caused by several things:
1. All of the bailouts and stimuli have kept poorly managed businesses from bankruptcy. However, that is ultimately unsustainable and the market realizes it, so people are keeping their money on the sidelines and waiting for the market to finally clear.
2. The federal government has been pumping out harmful regulations like there is no tomorrow. This makes businesses reluctant to invest for fear of a future regulation taking away their profitability.
3. The massive debt and deficits indicate that future tax increases are on the horizon. Thus, businesses are reluctant to invest because they know their profits will be taxed away.

the uncertainty argument is horseshit.   there has always been uncertainty.  that's what business is all about

I would like to see a Repub win just so he can declare there is no more "uncertaintly" in the world and if there is still no demand that money will still be as idle as before

there are companies that are expanding right and hiring people but there is also fear of a continuing worldwide economic slowdown (mostly due to lack of consumer demand) and in that situation most companies are going to go into safe mode and not make huge capital investments or take any big risks.  

[Option D]

I read many books. 

[howardroark]

the uncertainty argument is horseshit.   there has always been uncertainty.  that's what business is all about

I would like to see a Repub win just so he can declare there is no more "uncertaintly" in the world and if there is still no demand that money will still be as idle as before

there are companies that are expanding right and hiring people but there is also fear of a continuing worldwide economic slowdown (mostly due to lack of consumer demand) and in that situation most companies are going to go into safe mode and not make huge capital investments or take any big risks.  

So you say that "the uncertainty argument is horseshit," but then you turn around and say "but there is also fear of a continuing worldwide economic slowdown." You cannot say that there is no uncertainty and at the same time that the economy is not growing as quickly as it should be thanks to uncertainty.

Regardless, do you really think that a massive federal debt, record deficits, increasing micro-management of the economy by the federal government, and prospects of future tax hikes are all ignored by entrepreneurs and businessmen when making decisions?

[Straw Man]

So you say that "the uncertainty argument is horseshit," but then you turn around and say "but there is also fear of a continuing worldwide economic slowdown." You cannot say that there is no uncertainty and at the same time that the economy is not growing as quickly as it should be thanks to uncertainty.

Regardless, do you really think that a massive federal debt, record deficits, increasing micro-management of the economy by the federal government, and prospects of future tax hikes are all ignored by entrepreneurs and businessmen when making decisions?

fair enough but when Repubs say "uncertaintly" their implication is, often explicitly (and I'm not saying this is yours) is that Obama has created it and as soon as he is gone an Repub will come in and all uncertainty will go away

that is the part that is horeshit (and to be clear I'm not attributing this belief to you)

[howardroark]

fair enough but when Repubs say "uncertaintly" their implication is, often explicitly (and I'm not saying this is yours) is that Obama has created it and as soon as he is gone an Repub will come in and all uncertainty will go away

that is the part that is horeshit (and to be clear I'm not attributing this belief to you)

Not solely Obama's fault, but a lot of it is. I'd say that there is a lot of other factors that have helped cause this uncertainty as well, including Bush's failed stimuli, failed monetary stimuli by the Fed, the failed Bush/Obama bailouts which have prevented the market from clearing, deficits caused by the natural growth of government and the work of automatic stabilizers (something that can't be entirely laid at the feet of Obama), etc.

I think any Republican will do a better job than Obama, but none really has an understanding of any of this with the exception of Ron Paul.

[Straw Man]

Not solely Obama's fault, but a lot of it is. I'd say that there is a lot of other factors that have helped cause this uncertainty as well, including Bush's failed stimuli, failed monetary stimuli by the Fed, the failed Bush/Obama bailouts which have prevented the market from clearing, deficits caused by the natural growth of government and the work of automatic stabilizers (something that can't be entirely laid at the feet of Obama), etc.

I think any Republican will do a better job than Obama, but none really has an understanding of any of this with the exception of Ron Paul.

how do you account for the crash in RE values which has been the primary factor (IMO) crippling this economic recovery

what should/could Obama have done to mitigate that when he got into office?

btw - just so I get a basic understanding of your beliefs.  Do you think the government should do nothing (or not much except) enforcing contracts and securing the border?  Other than that there should be little or no regulation of business and basically an economic free for all inside the country with the belief that this will actually create more prosperity for eveyrone at all levels?

[howardroark]

how do you account for the crash in RE values which has been the primary factor (IMO) crippling this economic recovery

what should/could Obama have done to mitigate that when he got into office?

btw - just so I get a basic understanding of your beliefs.  Do you think the government should do nothing (or not much except) enforcing contracts and securing the border?  Other than that there should be little or no regulation of business and basically an economic free for all inside the country with the belief that this will actually create more prosperity for eveyrone at all levels?

He should have allowed RE prices to crash, since those prices were not sustainable. He also should have allowed the banking sector to fail, prices on the whole to fall, and failing businesses to go under. The result would have been a sustainable basis for future economic growth. By propping up RE prices and bad businesses, the government has prevented resources from being reallocated to lines of production where they would be the most useful.

And yes, I do not believe the government should have any role aside from protecting individual rights.

[Soul Crusher]

how do you account for the crash in RE values which has been the primary factor (IMO) crippling this economic recovery

what should/could Obama have done to mitigate that when he got into office?

btw - just so I get a basic understanding of your beliefs.  Do you think the government should do nothing (or not much except) enforcing contracts and securing the border?  Other than that there should be little or no regulation of business and basically an economic free for all inside the country with the belief that this will actually create more prosperity for eveyrone at all levels?

Real Estate prices being propped up are the problem!   

[Straw Man]

He should have allowed RE prices to crash, since those prices were not sustainable. He also should have allowed the banking sector to fail, prices on the whole to fall, and failing businesses to go under. The result would have been a sustainable basis for future economic growth. By propping up RE prices and bad businesses, the government has prevented resources from being reallocated to lines of production where they would be the most useful.

And yes, I do not believe the government should have any role aside from protecting individual rights.

so basically you would have recommended that Obama do nothing to try to help homeowners and just sit back and let the devastation roll over everyone and your assumption is that we would all come out the other end for the better

Do you think any POTUS could have taken that position in Feb 2009 (keep in mind the bailouts were already underway)?

btw - your last line of your post confirms what I suspected all along

classic Randian economic fantasy (or maybe it's just the unwritten belief that this will benefit a few at the top and fuck everyone else..... but so what...isn't that what the virtue of selfishness is all about anyway)

[LurkerNoMore]

Next will be lucky to get second in any state that borders GA.  Other than that, he is out of options and hope.

[howardroark]

so basically you would have recommended that Obama do nothing to try to help homeowners and just sit back and let the devastation roll over everyone and your assumption is that we would all come out the other end for the better

The bulk of the pain would not have been felt by the homeowners, but by the banks. It were the investment banks who had made bad investments and had their balance sheets destroyed. They would have had to declare bankruptcy and sell off their assets at firesale prices. The new owners of those assets could have then turned around and written off a large portion of the debt in order to prevent homeowners from going underwater.

Regardless, we are now feeling more pain than we would have had we allowed the market to correct itself. The market correction will take place either way; the question ultimately is whether or not we delay it. The fact of the matter is that the government has delayed the full extent of the correction, but at the expense of a bloated national debt, large federal deficits, high unemployment, creeping inflation, and slow economic growth. Had the government allowed the correction, then we'd be roaring away with a strong economy and low unemployment by now.

Do you think any POTUS could have taken that position in Feb 2009 (keep in mind the bailouts were already underway)?

IDK, I'm not an expert on politics.

btw - your last line of your post confirms what I suspected all along

classic Randian economic fantasy (or maybe it's just the unwritten belief that this will benefit a few at the top and fuck everyone else..... but so what...isn't that what the virtue of selfishness is all about anyway)

First of all, go read some Ayn Rand before you spout your bullshit.

Secondly, Ayn Rand and Objectivism take no position on economics. Economics is a science independent of philosophy.

Thirdly, my position on economics as a science is not at all influenced by Rand or Objectivism (unless you take my stance on epistemology as "influencing").  I came to economics before I ever became an Objectivist.

[George Whorewell]

so basically you would have recommended that Obama do nothing to try to help homeowners and just sit back and let the devastation roll over everyone and your assumption is that we would all come out the other end for the better

Do you think any POTUS could have taken that position in Feb 2009 (keep in mind the bailouts were already underway)?

btw - your last line of your post confirms what I suspected all along

classic Randian economic fantasy (or maybe it's just the unwritten belief that this will benefit a few at the top and fuck everyone else..... but so what...isn't that what the virtue of selfishness is all about anyway)

Not to beleaguer the point, but when a business cannot operate without receiving government handouts to stay afloat, that business should fail. Delaying the inevitable only makes things worse. You act as if allowing poorly managed and unprofitable companies to fail is worse than having poorly managed and unprofitable companies be supported by the American taxpayer in perpetuity. What ends up happening ( and Howard is obviously more knowledgeable on this subject than I am) is that markets are no longer operating on whether businesses will grow because of innovation or demand or potential gains / losses-- Instead we are seeing investors hedge their bets on whether the flow of government monopoly money continues.  This artificial government intrusion into the economy is only going to take us to the abyss. Throw in the obscene amount of regulations, tax hikes, Osamacare, the fact that this is an election year and US monetary policy and it is obvious to anyone except a complete moron why there is uncertainty.

[Shockwave]

Paul is like the little engine that could... he just keeps rolling along, slowly picking up momentum, slowly moving up, people slowly waking up to him...
The only question is, will he be able to gather enough momentum and supporters to catch Romney by the end?
I think probably not - unless Romney has a scandal come out that makes him lose steam... then I think Paul will overtake him and keep plugging along, picking up supporters every state and every primary.

That is not counting GOP intervention of course, I think if it gets close they will make sure he doesnt win.