Right........................
it is
right that all the keyensian assumptions that went into that chart were
wrong, as demonstrated by the reality of the past two years.
Meanwhile, from the Bureau of Economic Analysis
this is on GDP. do you ever get tired of desperately trying to change the subject?
however, if you want to talk
GDP:
Had the U.S. economy recovered from the current recession the way it bounced back from the other 10 recessions since World War II, our per-capita gross domestic product (GDP) would be $3,553 higher than it is today, and 11.9 million more Americans would be employed...
On average, three years after the four deepest previous recessions started, real GDP was 7.6% higher than the pre-recession level. During the Obama recovery, real GDP is up only 0.1%. Forty months after the start of the 1953, 1957, 1973 and 1981 recessions, total employment was on average 4.7% higher than the pre-recession peaks, while total employment today is still down 4.7%—that's a total employment gap of 13.9 million jobs...
If we had matched the 1982 recovery rate, today annual per-capita income would be $4,154 higher than before the recession—that's an extra $16,600 for a family of four—and some 15.7 million more Americans would have jobs. That's enough jobs to employ 100% of the 13.5 million Americans currently classified as unemployed. In addition, we would have provided jobs for 30% of both the 2.4 million discouraged or marginally attached workers and the 4.8 million who have totally dropped out of the work force since January 2008...
Ultimately, what you and I think doesn't matter. What matters is if the voters credit Obama next November for improving the economy over what it was when he entered the office.
that is true, though I think that whether or not Obama is able to successfuly scare Seniors into forgeting that he, too, wants to cut Medicare will have a significant effect.
My guess is, given that no one is rated a strong contender against him
what? plenty of the leading Republicans are strong contenders against him, though some of our leading 'names' (Gingrich, Romney, Barbour) all have negatives attached to them as well.
52% of Americans don't believe that Obama deserves another term, which means that the Republican Candidate just has to be bland enough to make the election about the President.
Which is why a Candidate with a strong executive governing record, a history of turning a deficit into a surplus, strong economic credentials, a history of
solid medical reform that
actually lowers costs, a history of appealing to independent voters, and no serious negatives would
whomp Obama in the General. we are talking 1980/1984 style here.
meet Mitch Daniels, two term Governor of Indiana:
...
When Daniels took office, the state had an $800-million deficit. He turned that into a $1.3-billion surplus. Since 2005, he has saved roughly $450 million in the state’s budget and reduced the state’s rate of spending growth from 5.9 percent to 2.8 percent... He won re-election by 18 points last year [in 2008, when Obama carried the state]. He won 20 percent of the black vote, and beat his Democratic opponent among voters under age 30 by 7 points...
under Daniels' Leadership, the state of Indiana demonstrated how to
actually reform healthcare, with market incentives.
...
In Indiana's HSA, the state deposits $2,750 per year into an account controlled by the employee, out of which he pays all his health bills. Indiana covers the premium for the plan. The intent is that participants will become more cost-conscious and careful about overpayment or overutilization.
Unused funds in the account—to date some $30 million or about $2,000 per employee and growing fast—are the worker's permanent property. For the very small number of employees (about 6% last year) who use their entire account balance, the state shares further health costs up to an out-of-pocket maximum of $8,000, after which the employee is completely protected.
The HSA option has proven highly popular. This year, over 70% of our 30,000 Indiana state workers chose it, by far the highest in public-sector America. Due to the rejection of these plans by government unions, the average use of HSAs in the public sector across the country is just 2%....
State employees enrolled in the consumer-driven plan will save more than $8 million in 2010 compared to their coworkers in the old-fashioned preferred provider organization (PPO) alternative. In the second straight year in which we've been forced to skip salary increases, workers switching to the HSA are adding thousands of dollars to their take-home pay. (Even if an employee had health issues and incurred the maximum out-of-pocket expenses, he would still be hundreds of dollars ahead.) HSA customers seem highly satisfied; only 3% have opted to switch back to the PPO.
The state is saving, too. In a time of severe budgetary stress, Indiana will save at least $20 million in 2010 because of our high HSA enrollment. Mercer calculates the state's total costs are being reduced by 11% solely due to the HSA option...
Overall, participants in our new plan ran up only $65 in cost for every $100 incurred by their associates under the old coverage. Are HSA participants denying themselves needed care in order to save money? The answer, as far as the state of Indiana and Mercer Consulting can find, is no. There is no evidence HSA members are more likely to defer needed care or common-sense preventive measures such as routine physicals or mammograms.
It turns out that, when someone is spending his own money alone for routine expenses, he is far more likely to ask the questions he would ask if purchasing any other good or service: "Is there a generic version of that drug?" "Didn't I take that same test just recently?" "Where can I get the colonoscopy at the best price?"
By contrast, the prevalent model of health plans in this country in effect signals individuals they can buy health care on someone else's credit card. A fast-food meal costs most Americans more out of pocket than a visit to the doctor. What seems free will always be overconsumed, compared to the choices a normal consumer would make. Hence [Indiana's] immense savings...
Especially since the GOP played their class war hand against the middle class and the elderly in their budget proposal.
Obama and Ryan both reduce Medicare expenditures. The difference between the two is that Ryan gives the decision to seniors on where their Medicare dollars should be allocated, and adopts a plan that has been demonstrated to lower costs, starting in 2022. The President wants an unelected board of politicized bureacrats to make one-size-fits-all decisions and impose them on America's seniors by fiat starting in 2014. The Democrats this cycle will get alot of mileage out of semi-lying-semi-just-not-telling-the-truth about this.
even Politifact (left leaning as it is) is calling the DNC on it's crap - but we will see how it all turns out.
It will be the year of the rich against the middle class and the elderly and I'm fairly confident which groups have the greater numbers.
it will be the year that Democrats try to turn the rich against the elderly and the old against the young. we will see how vulnerable American society is to such fracturing, and how open Americans are to being educated. if exit polling indicates that folks still think we can solve our deficit woes by cutting pork projects and foriegn aid.... then Republicans will have failed and Democrats will have won.