Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

PA: Toomey 45, Sestak 39 (Rasmussen 6/29)

Topics: Pennsylvania , poll

Rasmussen
6/29/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

Pennsylvania

2010 Senate
45% Toomey (R), 39% Sestak (D) (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Pat Toomey: 53 / 31
Joe Sestak: 51 / 40

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 47 / 53 (chart)
Gov. Rendell: 40 / 60 (chart)

 

Comments
melvin:

Its time for Sestak in Reid along with Conway to define these Neo-cons,they have to let the people in their State know what these right-wing nuts is all about.What the hell is they waiting for,because once the people who dont pay attention ,or watch news find out what these neo-cons political views are, am sure the Democrats will run away with these races.It appears their just waiting for October to come to spend their money.

____________________

Mike E:

melvin.

Americans know what neo-cons are all about and they are coming to realize that they are far far better for the country that the Obama neo-liberals.

____________________

hoosier_gary:

Looks like Sestak should have taken that bribe from Obama.

You have to remember that Pennslyvania didn't elect a democrat for this seat in 2004. They elected a republican. The people of PA who elected Specter didn't switch parties along with him. Sestak is still trying to switch a senate seat from blue to red in a year where blue is in big trouble.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I agree with Melvin about Reid and Sestak that they should win and if they don't win it will only be because we did a poor job getting people to turn out to vote. As for Rand Paul, I think he would be way more dangerous than Jim Bunning, but nevertheless, it wouldn't hurt as bad as the other two because KY is a state Obama lost by 18 points.

NV and PA had a bad economy when Obama was elected and whether they turn back to kim or continue to turn away from him, and go for the Republicans I assure you that things either won't improve or get worse. Both candidates have records that would make Saxby Chambliss, John Cornyn and John Vitter look quite moderate in comparison.

____________________

hoosier_gary:

The big boo-hoo about what Obama inherited is getting pathetic. He has spent 2 trillion on stimulus, jobs, bailouts, and auto companies and the economy is getting worse. Time for him and his supporters to man up. He's in charge now.

What PA and the rest of the country knows is that the economy started going into the toilet in 2007 - when democrats took over the house and the senate and started spending like drunken sailors.

Despite what democrats think, voters aren't stupid. That's why democrats in the house and senate are in so much more trouble than Obama. They caused this mess and he hasn't been able to reverse it yet.

____________________

TeaPartyRules:

Melvin
You really need to finish the third grade before you post on here. Honestly dude you aren't coming across very well, which negates any point you're trying to make. Does your computer have spell/grammar check? If so please use it, you're making my eyes bleed.

____________________

melvin:

hoosier_gary where did you come up with that figure? Obama didnot bail out the banks.why do you Republicans keep saying Obama have spent over 2 trillion dollars,that is just a big fat lie spread by Foxnews.Obama have only spent between 850 billion to 900 billion,you can blame ur beloved George Bush for the other 1.1 trillion.

____________________

Field Marshal:

NO!! I like when melvin and some of the other low-brained libies post on here. They give me a chuckle and give me some nice breaks in my work day.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I am so sick of the obstructionism in the GOP not just on fiscal or social issues, but I am concerned they will obstruct Obama on immigration reform too. The fact Arizona was forced to create tough laws, was clearly not Obama's fault. Even George W. couldn't work with the neo-cons in his own party on the immigration issue.

Obama needs to hit this issue hard with Hispanics and with everyone else. He can even give our last president some credit for trying. I think immigration is an issue Obama can work with the GOP and Democrats with. I don't think Lindsay Graham is an unreasonable guy, and I would really like to see him work out something with the Democrats that is bi-partisan.

Illegal immigration is a problem that affects us, regardless of political views and hopefully this can be something that can progress.

____________________

melvin:

Mr teaparty was you talking about your hero Sarah Palin who only finish the 3rd grade.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Really Farleft, because I am VERY happy with the obstructionism of the GOP. And given the proclivity of this administration for adding as many illegals and minority voters, I will be happy when the GOP obstructs that.

Remember, its no coincidence that more jobs and more economic growth has occurred when the government has had different parties in control and congress and the white house- gridlock.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

You've heard the debates between neo-cons and neo-liberals, but what about moderates? It seems as though they are a dying species in America.

I think the Democrats have tried harder than the GOP since Democrats have tried to recruit moderates this year in NC for Senate as well as KY and other states. With the exception of Castle in DE, and HOeven in ND, Kirk in IL the GOP seems to be picking ultra-right tea party types.

____________________

CHRIS MERKEY:

Well Hoosier You seem to forget that in 2006 we voted for Bob Casey over Santorum by a margin of 20%. The biggest incumbent loss since 1980. Sestak hasn't even begun to campaign. I haven't seen an ad against TOomey but once he shows him for the ultra conservative he is, he won't win here. Sestak is way more suitable than TOomey plus he has military experience which is always helpful for a candidate in PA. Not to mention Rasmussen's weighting could be totally off.

____________________

TeaPartyRules:

FM
Then you must be ROTFLYFAO!

____________________

CHRIS MERKEY:

Sharron Angle's interview with a news reporter was a total bomb. She won't be giving anymore except to FOx News or right wing radio. The damage might already me done.

____________________

TeaPartyRules:

A little help for Melvin

Before;
Mr teaparty was you talking about your hero Sarah Palin who only finish the 3rd grade.

After;
Mr. Tea Party were you talking about your hero Sarah Palin who only finished the 3rd grade?

See it isn't that hard.

____________________

hoosier_gary:

We don't need immigration reform until we enforce the immigration laws we already have. We don't have a failure in the laws - we have a failure in the government enforcing laws.

Why do democrats think we always need new laws when they refuse to enforce and obey the laws we already have? Why are they so soft on crime?

As far as I know, this is still a representative government. The republicans are stopping what their constituents say to stop. But, that's what elections are for, as Obama so arrogantly stated when he shoved a healthcare monstrosity down our throats.

If the voters agree that the republicans are obstructionists, then the republicans will lose big in November. But what some are calling obstructing others are calling protecting.

____________________

melvin:

I hear if the Republicans dont take back the House in Senate the right-wing nuts are going to go crazy in take to the streets with their guns and racist signs.I heard this on the Mike Salvage radio show lastweek.

____________________

Gtfan4ever:

Melvin does everything boil down to race for you? Also please learn what the term neo-con mean(here's a hint it's the opposite of a true conservative)and Toomey and Rand Paul are definitely not neo-cons.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Yes melvin, and we'll all be out hunting for left-wing nuts like yourself. But remember, we can't find you when you have your tin foil hat on so wear it at all times!

____________________

TeaPartyRules:

Thank GTfan, I just started to ask Melvin to define neo-con in his own words, but my eyes have bled enough for the day. Anyway back to work...have fun kids.

____________________

MikeyA:

"who only finish the 3rd grade."

Way to prove their point.

____________________

melvin:

You see thats the difference between liberals in Conservatives Field Marshal,liberals dont take to the streets in violence, because if we did the Supreme Court wouldnot have gave George Bush the election in 2000.

____________________

Paleo:

"Good polls are expensive to do, and if you're seeing a particular organization doing a slew of polls, you've to ask: 1) how reliable are those numbers, or 2) where is the money coming from to conduct those polls?"

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/06/30/a_little_secret_about_polls.html


____________________

TeaPartyRules:

Melvin, please, enough of the Boyz in da hood crap.

www.HookedonPhonics.com See A Dramatic Improvement In Your Child's Reading Skills-Guaranteed!

____________________

Paleo:

Sestak will win this. Once Mr. Privatize Social Security and his Club for Growth garbage are exposed, Toomey will be in big trouble.

____________________

melvin:

Ok Paul is not a neo-con,but all he wants to do is torture illegal immigrants by putting up a electric fence on the border.

____________________

hoosier_gary:

I don't own a gun. I guess I'll have to go buy one so I can take to the streets.

That email must have gone into my spam folder. Can someone tell me where we are supposed to meet before we start our violent rampage?

____________________

lat:

Sheetmussen! At it again.

____________________

Xenobion:

I like how this race under previous Rasmussen polls has gotten less tight and Sestak has had an 8 point drop from 2 weeks ago.

____________________

hoosier_gary:

The social security question can be put very clearly for Toomey, "Do you trust Obama, Reid, and Pelosi with your retirement money or would you rather control it yourself?"

My 401-K took a huge hit with this recession but at least there is still money left in it - unlike social security which has no money and is unlikely to be able to return any of the money I invested in it.

Even with this recession, I would have a retirement account with a big chunk of money it it if social security had been privatized 40 years ago. Now I have a pile of worthless IOU's.

____________________

tjampel:

hoosier_gary:

"The social security question can be put very clearly for Toomey, 'Do you trust Obama, Reid, and Pelosi with your retirement money or would you rather control it yourself?'"

What retirement money are you talking about btw, for someone who's 65? They're in no position to invest NOW. They just want to get that socialist handout and don't want the Gov messing with their Medicare either.

Your reasoning and proposed campaign might work with a younger demographic. PA has one of the oldest in the country. This is like telling old folks that, with Toomey's help, GrandSON's gonna pull the plug on Granny...by withholding her life blood (their continued pay-in to SS).

The mere threat of tinkering with SS has been used successfully to freak out old folks by Republicans and Dems alike. It generally works, whether it's true or not.

____________________

Paleo:

"The social security question can be put very clearly for Toomey, "Do you trust Obama, Reid, and Pelosi with your retirement money or would you rather control it yourself?"

My 401-K took a huge hit with this recession but at least there is still money left in it - unlike social security which has no money and is unlikely to be able to return any of the money I invested in it.

Even with this recession, I would have a retirement account with a big chunk of money it it if social security had been privatized 40 years ago. Now I have a pile of worthless IOU's."

Lie. Lie. Lie. Oh, and that first argument was tried in 2005 by Bush, and was a dud.

Your're totally offbase because you don't even understand the purpose of social security. It is insurance, not an investment vehicle. And treasury bonds are not worthless IOUs. Social security will be there as long as right-wing politicians and the deficit obsessed don't get their hands on it.

____________________

Mike E:

If you account for the Reich-mass-KKK-en effect this is infinity percent for Sestak and minus 10% for Toomey.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Your're totally offbase because you don't even understand the purpose of social security. It is insurance, not an investment vehicle. And treasury bonds are not worthless IOUs. Social security will be there as long as right-wing politicians and the deficit obsessed don't get their hands on it.

Exactly. So the argument that most on the left make-that raising the retirement age to 75- when they say many would be too old to work then is a fallacy.

Its insurance, not your retirement fund.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

This has been said before, but I think it merits repeating we need to have some clarity on who and what actually exploded the budget deficit.

Last 10 years (in billions):

Bill Clinton
FY00 +236
FY01 +128

George W. Bush
FY02 -157
FY03 -377
FY04 -412
FY05 -318
FY06 -248
FY07 -180
FY08 -458
FY09 -1,412

Barack Obama
FY10 -1,555
FY11 -1.266 (est)

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/hist.html

It should be noted that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the outlays for much of the "war on terror" were off-budget. Obama's FY 10 budget decreased off-budget outlays by 43%. That however is by does not even begin to take into account the overall costs of the wars, much of which is tied up with soldier and veteran benefits, especially health care. The total costs of the wars since 2001 have been $1.05 trillion. Consider long term equipment attrition and unfunded veteran obligations it's much, much more.

Receipts went up every year 03-08 yet Bush didn't start deficit reduction until 05 and his plan was dependent on the kind of growth we saw from 05-07.

The recession has been the cause of the budget deficit more than anything else, followed by thge wars/defense related spending, then the obligations like SS, medicare, unemployment, etc... which no one, not even republicans are willing to cut. They are willing to reduce their growth but they are NOT willing to cut them in any meaningful way that would reduce the debt because obviously that would have even more detrimental effects on the economy and would mean political suicide.

The only way to reduce the deficit is to 1) cut spending PARTICULARLY defense but also health care spending and increase the age of social security attainment. The first two options seem extremely unlikely. 2) increase revenues which means raise taxes. I don't know about all of you, but my refund has gone up every year since 07 and I really don't need it. I would gladly pay in if it meant my job was more secure. These "tax cuts" which amount to more on your refund are ridiculous.

The republicans are against any tax increases and cuts to defense, and the democrats are against cuts to other things. Neither party is willing to make the necessary cuts or raise taxes which are riculously low especially for corporations and the rich. Instead the upper middle class shoulders the most disproportionate burden. The only think that will save us is an economic turnaround which is not looking likely because of global forces beyond our control. We're all screwed.

____________________

Paleo:

Who on the left argues for raising the retirement age to 75? Certainly not me. If the growth rate for the next 20 to 30 years is average, there won't be any need to do anything to social security. Once the baby boomers are gone, it will become flush again. If a shortfall does develop before that time, that can be addressed without cutting benefits or raising the retirement age.

____________________

Paleo:

"Its insurance, not your retirement fund."

I think that's the first thing we've agreed on. It was always envisaged that social security would not be the sole means of retirement. It was meant to prevent seniors from becoming destitute. A safety net. Insurance.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

It's important to not that the percentage increase of Obama's FY10 budget is nothing comapard to the percentage increase in Bush's FY 02 budget.

Also 08 was the year that medicare part D's expenses started to kick in.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Retirement account or insurance?

I've pondered that for years. Clearly, it's neither. Or both. A hybrid. With faulty brakes.

If it is a retirement account, then how come legal immigrants who arrive here after the age of 65 get the bennies, having never paid a red cent into it?

Is it insurance? Against what? Poverty? Then how come billionaires get the bennies?

I think making it a true insurance and awarding benefits only to the destitute makes for a good argument. Same as Medicare. Let the wealthy support themselves and buy their own health insurance. If and when they go broke, they can get SS and Medicare.

____________________

hoosier_gary:

"It is insurance, not an investment vehicle."

So Obama has turned SS into an extension of Obamacare? Heaven help us all.

SS is not insurance. It is retirement. Always has been. It was sold that way and it has been protected with that argument since it was implemented. "It's your money. You'll get it all back when you retire".

No one is talking about taking away granny's social security. A fix has to be phased in but if people keep using SS as nothing but a big bad boogeyman poltical tactic SS will be completely bankrupt in 20 years.

For 30 years a few brave people have tried to propose a way to fix social security. They get slapped down and SS keeps heading for bankruptcy.

"Lie. Lie. Lie."

If you have the intelligence, take a half hour and put together an analysis in Excel. If that's too hard, look one up. That's how long it takes to see how much you have put into SS and what it would be worth today if you controlled it and not the federal government.

Someone making $50,000 per year could retire a millionaire if they took the money they are forced to put into SS and keep it somewhere out of the grubby hands of politicians.

How much is that person going to get from social security when they retire? 20K per year? That's less than the interest they would earn from their private retirement account. They wouldn't even have to touch the principal and they would be better off than with SS.

But if you aren't smart enough for that, keep screaming, "Lie. Lie. Lie.". It works for Obama.

____________________

Paleo:

"Is it insurance? Against what? Poverty? Then how come billionaires get the bennies?"

Because by making it universal, it can't be demonized as some sort of "welfare" program for the great unwashed. And then cut. Everyone has a stake in it. Its universality ensures its popularity, so that those who really need it can be assured that they'll get it. And those who may not need it now will know that they'll have something to fall back on if the worst should happen.

____________________

Paleo:

"So Obama has turned SS into an extension of Obamacare? Heaven help us all.

SS is not insurance. It is retirement."

Ugh.

Obama hasn't turned social security into anything. It's insurance, and has been insurance from the beginning. Since FDR.

"Social security is primarily a social insurance program providing social protection, or protection against socially recognized conditions, including poverty, old age, disability, unemployment and others."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_security

____________________

StatyPolly:
____________________

Field Marshal:

Aaron,

Its interesting that the surplus from Clinton to Bush was half due to the downturn in the economy that Bush 'inherited'. 22% went to the wars and 29% due to tax relief.

The projections for Obama's budget due make Bush's look like a lightweight when it comes to deficits. The deficits are forecast to decrease to around $800 billion by 2013 but then begin increasing again, fairly rapidly towards the end of the decade.

Plus, you can argue that the 2009 budget should be Obama's. He was president on Jan 20, 2009. The budget was passed in early March of 2008 based on assumptions of the economy that turned very sour later that year. Given that the tax receipts fell off, shouldn't the Dem congress and obama have decreased expenditures. In addition, the stimulus plan, nearly 25% of it, was added to the 2009 budget. Should that count towards Bush or Obama? Also, the Omnibus Spending of nearly $500 billion was added to the 2009 budget in February. Should that go to Bush?

Anyway, assigning who did what and how $1 of debt is whose is meaningless. The question is how is Obama going to cut the deficit?

____________________

Field Marshal:

I agree with you Paleo. (did i really just write that?). Since SS was instituted as an end of years insurance program, and the age of 65 as chosen mostly because that was about the life expectancy of the average American at the time, shouldn't we be raising the age as life expectancy increases?

____________________

Paleo:

No. It was probably too high when it came in, in order to get it passed. It's fine where it is. Anyway, the age to get full benefits is eventually going to go up to 67.

As for the deficit, now is not the time to worry about it. The recovery is tenuous. We don't need a repeat of 1937.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Given that the tax receipts fell off, shouldn't the Dem congress and obama have decreased expenditures. In addition, the stimulus plan, nearly 25% of it, was added to the 2009 budget. Should that count towards Bush or Obama? Also, the Omnibus Spending of nearly $500 billion was added to the 2009 budget in February. Should that go to Bush? "

Yes, the bailouts were Bush policy, as was the tax cut part of the stiumulus, just larger.

I like how you're more than willing to blame the decrease in revenue at the beginning of Bush's term on his predecessor, but Obama must have not inherited any problems at all...they're all of his making.

"The question is how is Obama going to cut the deficit?"

I already explained how I think it should be handled, which no party will do. You're going to be very disappointed when republicans take over and nothing about the deficit is improved

I dare them to cut medicare. Please, please cut it. Oh wait, last I checked they tried to STRENGTHEN it by diverting medicaid funds. Take the poor people's health care away and give it to old people. Way to go.

____________________

Mike E:

"As for the deficit, now is not the time to worry about it. The recovery is tenuous. We don't need a repeat of 1937."

The great depression was created out of what should have been a typical recession by the failed stimulus spending plan of FDR. Don't want to repeat 1937? Stop the Democrats from throwing more money down the sink hole.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

"Field Marshal:
Really Farleft, because I am VERY happy with the obstructionism of the GOP. And given the proclivity of this administration for adding as many illegals and minority voters, I will be happy when the GOP obstructs that. "

It is comments like these that prove my point about today's modern conservatives. This attitude is what is more apparent. Of course the parties can debate issues, but immigration is a serious problem that Obama addressed today. In fact he did not support the amnesty.

The theory that Obama wants as many undocumented workers to become citizens so they can vote Democratic is absurd. I resent that because as a white male, I would like nothing more than to see the Democrats win back more rural white voters, and wouldn't mind seeing more hispanics, Asians and african Americans voting for Republicans. I think that is why our country is so divided.

Obama isn't thinking about his popularity among each racial group; he is trying to take on a lot of issues that were overlooked and ignored for a long time.

____________________

Paleo:

"The great depression was created out of what should have been a typical recession by the failed stimulus spending plan of FDR. Don't want to repeat 1937? Stop the Democrats from throwing more money down the sink hole."

Man, some of you folks need a history lesson. I mean bad.

Unemployment was 25% when FDR came into office. Yeah, but his "stimulus spending" caused the Great Depression. Right.

1937 was when FDR sought to close the budget deficit by cutting spending. That caused a reversal in the economy.

FM seems to know what he's talking about most of the time. Most of the rest of you on the right here need to stop watching Glenn Beck and listening to Sean Hannity, or vice versa, and take a course in U.S. history.

____________________

Chenna_benna:

If Rasmussen has Toomey only up by six, then he is actually really in trouble and Sestak is either ahead by one or two or well within striking distance. Now is the time for Sestak to start hitting Toomey hard and start picking away at the bones.

____________________

Mike E:

In case anyone is confused, lets remind ourselves who created the massive deficits.

Last 10 years (in billions)/control of congress (ie control of spending):

FY00 +236/R
FY01 +128/D
FY02 -157/D
FY03 -377/R
FY04 -412/R
FY05 -318/R
FY06 -248/R
FY07 -180/D
FY08 -458/D
FY09 -1,412/D

Barack Obama
FY10 -1,555
FY11 -1.266 (est)

____________________

Mike E:

In case anyone is confused, lets remind ourselves who created the massive deficits.

Last 10 years (in billions)/control of congress (ie control of spending):

FY00 +236/R
FY01 +128/D
FY02 -157/D
FY03 -377/R
FY04 -412/R
FY05 -318/R
FY06 -248/R
FY07 -180/D
FY08 -458/D
FY09 -1,412/D
FY10 -1,555/D
FY11 -1.266(est)/D

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"The great depression was created out of what should have been a typical recession by the failed stimulus spending plan of FDR. Don't want to repeat 1937? Stop the Democrats from throwing more money down the sink hole"

This is what we'll all be learning if the backers of the TX rewrites of history have their way.

There was no agricultural depression that foreshadowed the Great Depression in the 1920s. There was no overconsumption going on in the 1920s, followed by underconsumption/overproduction. There was no disparity in the distribution of wealth that caused the resultant underconsumption in the 1920s. There was no stock speculation going on in the 1920s. There was no destabilization of the economy in Europe in the late 1920s with roots in 1919. There were no bank failures that took place in 1931-32 before FDR took office.

All of that never happened. It was all FDR and the New Deal.

____________________

Mike E:

@Aaron.

Step away from the Paul Krugman Kool Aid, that stuff will kill you!

"All of that never happened. It was all FDR and the New Deal."

Strawman. Actually a recession happened, FDR made it worse.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"control of congress (ie control of spending)"

The democrats never controlled the House when the 01 and 02 budgets were written. They had control of the Senate for a brief period in 01-02, nor did they control it when FY 07 was written.

FY 08 was when revenues began to decline and the medicare part D benefit really kicked in.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Strawman. Actually a recession happened, FDR made it worse."

You are completely wrong. What do you call the bank failures of 1931-32? Tra la la things were so GOOD before FDR took over! Unemployment was 25% when FDR took office in 1933. By 1936 it was 11%.

____________________

Mike E:

Man, some of you libs need a history lesson. Its as though all you know comes from Maddow and Olbermann. You do know that The Daily Show is just comedy right? It not real news.

FDRs policies prolonged the great depression by 7 years.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

____________________

Mike E:

"What do you call the bank failures of 1931-32? Tra la la things were so GOOD before FDR took over! Unemployment was 25% when FDR took office in 1933. By 1936 it was 11%."

Again with the strawmen. A recession happened. FDR made it worse.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Aaron,

You sarcastic reasoning, the things you wrote in your 4:31pm post, are indeed correct as you know. But most economists do suggest that FDR's New Deal did prolong the depression. However, it has also been hypothesized that without some of those new deal programs there would have been MUCH greater civil unrest possibly resulting in outright revolution.

Interesting that you choose 1936 as the end year of you unemployment rate comparison. Especially since in 1937, the country slipped back into depression because of FDR's tax increases on the rich and a decrease in spending and unemployment jumped back towards 20%. Sound familiar?

I think most of you know my feelings on FDR being the worst president of modern times. But hey, like the ridiculous Siena poll out today, its all opinion and based on nothing more than the individuals interpretation of history.

As far as stimulus spending, we really didn't do any. 10% of the stimulus went to infrastructure which has a high multiplier effect. The rest went to shoring up state budgets so they didn't have to layoff state employees. This has no multiplier. Tax cuts, permanent ones, generally have a multiplier in the 2-3 range.

What will happen next year when the states have to handle the increase in medicaid funding they are responsible for? Another "stimulus" plan?

Keynesian economic theory is being criticized and i think it should be. There are significant limits to what deficit spending can accomplish. I think Bush did it right, partially, when he cut taxes and spent heavily on military which also has a high multiplier (some believe). However, where he got it wrong was the added entitlement and discretionary spending increases after 2005. But that's another story. Those deficits were manageable as deficits only matter when they are larger than nominal GDP growth.

Today, we are at the threshold where Keynesian spending will actually hamper, not augment the recovery as the private sector and investors with capital will be frightened from sovereign risk and the impending increase in interest rates.

Our economy needs to embrace a structural change to Chicago School of economics, namely monetarism and Milton Friedman's economic philosophies.

____________________

Paleo:

Had you said that 30 years ago, you may have had an argument. But those are the very policies we've been following for 30 years. Actually, over 30, ever since Carter made Volker head of the Fed.

"This is what we'll all be learning if the backers of the TX rewrites of history have their way.

There was no agricultural depression that foreshadowed the Great Depression in the 1920s. There was no overconsumption going on in the 1920s, followed by underconsumption/overproduction. There was no disparity in the distribution of wealth that caused the resultant underconsumption in the 1920s. There was no stock speculation going on in the 1920s. There was no destabilization of the economy in Europe in the late 1920s with roots in 1919. There were no bank failures that took place in 1931-32 before FDR took office.

All of that never happened. It was all FDR and the New Deal."

LOL. Well done. And unemployment, which was 3% on March 3, 1933, suddenly jumped up to 25% on March 4, 1933.

____________________

Paleo:

"FDRs policies prolonged the great depression by 7 years."

LOL. A study by two right-wing economists endorsed by Chicago School economist. A decent debunking is here:

http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2009/02/02/the_new_deal_worked

By 1937, before the mistaken austerity measures, unemployment had fallen nearly 11 percentage points from its 1933 height. In 1936, GNP growth was 14%.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

What the Chicago school espouses is just as much a theory as Keynes, but not nearly as substantiated by actual experience. WWII was the ultimate stimulus. What country actually engages or used to engage in Chicago school economics? None, that I know of.

Europe was pulling out of the Great Depression earlier than the U.S. because most of those countries had taken more aggressive measures, to combat unemployment, some of them through revolution as FM suggests.

The Bonus Army certainly had the trappings of a coup, but it was far from it. I find it unlikely any sort of revolution would have happened in America. Although it was a legitimate concern in the 1930s as some of the writings of the FDR people indicate.

"As far as stimulus spending, we really didn't do any."

On this we agree. FDR would have been very disappointed. Although I feel the state aid was merited. Would a couple dozen state defaults have been preferable? Especially from our largest states? CA and FL would have been the first to go.

"spent heavily on military which also has a high multiplier (some believe)."

When it involves the population like in WWI, WWII or even Vietnam. Certainly not with Iraq, in which only a portion of the military (1% of the population) participated in at any one time. The rest were private contractors and we threw money at the Iraqis themselves. Our military production does not have the multiplier effect it once did because it's not that broad, but very expesive nonetheless. Where it does have an effect is either in highly specialized fields or very regional.

We don't even get everything from the U.S. The fabric for the army's uniforms, for example, is bought from Austria, then assembled in Georgia.

I remember when I was living in Mass, some company that made something for the military was relocating many of the factory jobs to Mexico.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Had you said that 30 years ago, you may have had an argument. But those are the very policies we've been following for 30 years. Actually, over 30, ever since Carter made Volker head of the Fed.

Not quite but close Paleo. And the last 30 years, even when including the recession of last year, was the greatest 30 years in our history in terms of economic growth.


What the Chicago school espouses is just as much a theory as Keynes, but not nearly as substantiated by actual experience. WWII was the ultimate stimulus. What country actually engages or used to engage in Chicago school economics? None, that I know of.

Yes, it is just theory. All of economics is which is why, after getting my degree, i went into finance. I like mathematics that returns a definitive answer.

As far as Iraq, of course it was a lower multiplier than WWII. But it has a multiplier and i would disagree with you that our military production has no multiplier. Some economists argue it has a higher multiplier than infrastructure. I wouldn't say so but there is something there.

____________________

Mike E:

@Paleo

"A decent debunking is here:"

LOL, a decent dedunking by uber-left, FDR worshipping, Salon.com. Thats a riot.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR