Rate Michelle Obama's Speech

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He jumped at the deficit committee's recommendation- the same one Ryan accused him of ignoring. However, when that fell through, he was willing to accept what Boehner originally offered during the Super Committee meetings. However by that time Boehner was no longer able to get his caucus to go along with it. It was more a matter of mis-coordination in timing than what they would fundamentally agree to.

So basically Obama tried really hard to cave but the Republicans still refused to compromise? So sad and predictable.

[King]

No, the thin outer layers of every Romney speech is "I know the economy, I will make it better."  The underlying core truth is he knows absolutely nothing and has no plan.  It's not "light on the details," there's plenty of details.  It's light on foundation.  It's a complete non-plan.  It doesn't add up.  It makes no sense.  It defies economic principles.  

He did make his money in venture capitalism.  I have no problem with that.  That would be of great help if he was a Democrat.  But how is that going to come in handy when his platform is centered around no government intervention?  Where are these skills he used to insert money into the right parts of a failing industry going to come in handy on a no-stimulus no-regulation plan?  

I have no belief Romney will make this economy better.  This economy will save itself naturally before Mitt Romney does.

Contrary to popular beliefs, the government does a lot of things. Contrary to your belief, it will still do things under Mitt Romney. The argument that "Oh, Mitt knows how to run things, but he won't run government - he'll get rid of it" is simply not valid.

If you remember from 2008, Barack Obama didn't lay out his entire fiscal budget. Nor did Bush. Nor did Clinton. It's this ridiculous double-standard.

And you think this economy will "naturally save itself"? Well, you're free to invest assuming that, but I'm pretty sure that is a very rarely-held assumption. There are huge road-bumps ahead, chief among the looming fiscal cliff (among many others). I'll suppose we'll just see how whoever is president deals with them.

The budget was not the cornerstone of Obama, Bush, or Clinton's plans for the country.  Obama's plan for the country was built around healthcare reform.  His plan for it was very detailed.  He gave many a number of speeches about what he ACTUALLY WANTED TO DO.  Granted, most of it ended up getting tossed aside by the Congress.  Bush's plan involved using the surplus on tax cuts.  Guess what? He laid it out perfectly.  Gore debated him on it.  He became President and he did it.

Romney's entire policy platform is built around fiscal reform and there's no plan.  It's not a double standard.  I don't understand how you cannot get this.  Mitt Romney is not going to do anything.  You're just hoping he is.  He's too afraid of the people.  He's everything wrong with Obama taken to the 10th power and none of the rights.

Don't get me wrong.  I don't believe Obama is going to have an amazing second term.   We're basically faced with two hollow options who will both be ineffective and more or less both make the same decisions.

If that's the case, if we're voting for empty suits with very little difference, then why the hell would I pick dodgy, dishonest, and nervous enigma Mitt Romney over a cool, fascinating personality and known entity in Barack Obama?  If there's going to be no debate on facts, I'm going to have to go on looks.

[Beet]

Just amazing. So because Obama inherited a mess "of course" things are better, because things could only go up? You people are seriously spoiled. You have no idea how hard it was to get from there to here and the fact that going up from the entire world melting down in early 2009 wasn't a guarantee.

Obama's done such a good job that the present state of things is just assume, as if, of course we've recovered! It was always going to happen! Good lord. It makes me sick to my stomach.

None of Romney's brain trust predicted the biggest economic disaster in a generation. People like Dean Baker and Paul Krugman did, like hell they'll ever be invited into government, even though they should be running it.

[Beet]

Glenn Hubbard was the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors when the subprime & housing bubble exploded and he failed to say anything about it.

In August 2005 Glenn Hubbard said:

"I think we do have a great deal of froth in housing markets. There’s no doubt about it. I don’t think we’re likely to see a large nominal price collapse, that is largely falling house prices, but I think we’ll see much slower rates of growth in house prices after 2005."

Hubbard had massive conflicts of interest at Columbia which he failed to disclose and this resulted in Columbia changing its policy on disclosure of conflict of interest.

Yeah, these people are geniuses. The stupidest thing is that just because they wrap themselves around an aura of respectability, because they have this or that title, some people think they great.

[後援会]

The budget was not the cornerstone of Obama, Bush, or Clinton's plans for the country.  Obama's plan for the country was built around healthcare reform.  His plan for it was very detailed.  He gave many a number of speeches about what he ACTUALLY WANTED TO DO.  Granted, most of it ended up getting tossed aside by the Congress.  Bush's plan involved using the surplus on tax cuts.  Guess what? He laid it out perfectly.  Gore debated him on it.  He became President and he did it.

Romney's entire policy platform is built around fiscal reform and there's no plan.  It's not a double standard.  I don't understand how you cannot get this.  Mitt Romney is not going to do anything.  You're just hoping he is.  He's too afraid of the people.  He's everything wrong with Obama taken to the 10th power and none of the rights.

Don't get me wrong.  I don't believe Obama is going to have an amazing second term.   We're basically faced with two hollow options who will both be ineffective and more or less both make the same decisions.

If that's the case, if we're voting for empty suits with very little difference, then why the hell would I pick dodgy, dishonest, and nervous enigma Mitt Romney over a cool, fascinating personality and known entity in Barack Obama?  If there's going to be no debate on facts, I'm going to have to go on looks.

Wait, the Ryan Plan is not detailed? It is anything if not excessively detailed. You can't seriously argue the Ryan Plan is less detailed than Obama's healthcare plan in 2008.

Just amazing. So because Obama inherited a mess "of course" things are better, because things could only go up? You people are seriously spoiled. You have no idea how hard it was to get from there to here and the fact that going up from the entire world melting down in early 2009 wasn't a guarantee.

Obama's done such a good job that the present state of things is just assume, as if, of course we've recovered! It was always going to happen! Good lord. It makes me sick to my stomach.

None of Romney's brain trust predicted the biggest economic disaster in a generation. People like Dean Baker and Paul Krugman did, like hell they'll ever be invited into government, even though they should be running it.

You can't think the bulk of the "financial rescue" was done during the Obama administration. Like these policies or not, the vast majority of these "Obama policies to stave off disaster" were just continuation of financial policies initiated by Paulson and the rest of the Bush Administration. When people legitimately felt we had a disaster on our hands. By the time Obama had become president, yes, we had largely already averted the crisis.

If we're talking about economists and predictions, how about this. Of course, we can update this to 10 of the last 1 recessions. Anyways, predictions are hard. No one is good at predicting recessions. At least without 90% of their predictions being false positives.

[King]

Paul Ryan's plan is not Mitt Romney's plan.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How about that? Did you actually read the quotes? Most of them make him look good.

"If housing prices actually started falling, we'd be looking at an economy pushed right back into recession. That's why it's so ominous to see signs that America's housing market ... is approaching the final, feverish stages of a speculative bubble." — Paul Krugman, May 2005

"I think we do have a great deal of froth in housing markets. There’s no doubt about it. I don’t think we’re likely to see a large nominal price collapse, that is largely falling house prices, but I think we’ll see much slower rates of growth in house prices after 2005." -- Glenn Hubbard, August 2005

And you argue Hubbard is better than Krugman.

[後援会]

Paul Ryan's plan is not Mitt Romney's plan.

It basically is. It's the only thing Republicans and Democrats agree on, which is why so much of the oxygen is taken up by Republicans defending the budget and Democrats attacking it. Taking Ryan as his running mate despite easily more electorally helpful candidates out was perhaps the most meaningful endorsement imaginable. He had to actually commit himself to Ryan. Far more meaningful than saying "oh, I will reform entitlements. True story bro, trust me."

[Beet]

Here's another whopper from Romney adviser Kevin Hasset, published in the NY Times July 25, 2004:

"Another bubble-skeptic is Kevin Hassett, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute and co-author of the fabled ''Dow 36,000,'' which was published in 1999 when the Dow Jones index was around 11,000. Mr. Hassett says there is an ideological component to the belief in bubbles. Liberals, who tend to believe that government must step in to protect people from market imperfections, will likely see more of them. Conservatives, who like their markets unfettered, will see less.

Mr. Hassett of the conservative American Enterprise Institute thinks housing prices will be pretty much O.K. He acknowledges there might be some bubble dynamics at play in some regions. But he argues that for the most part people are paying more for homes because their incomes are higher and interest rates are lower, reducing the cost to own a home.

Mr. Hassett expects that rising interest rates would raise this cost and home prices would then decline proportionately. But he sees no reason to expect a catastrophic decline. ''I don't think a catastrophe is very likely,'' he says."

This guy is one of Romney's top 3 advisers.

[後援会]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How about that? Did you actually read the quotes? Most of them make him look good.

"If housing prices actually started falling, we'd be looking at an economy pushed right back into recession. That's why it's so ominous to see signs that America's housing market ... is approaching the final, feverish stages of a speculative bubble." — Paul Krugman, May 2005

"I think we do have a great deal of froth in housing markets. There’s no doubt about it. I don’t think we’re likely to see a large nominal price collapse, that is largely falling house prices, but I think we’ll see much slower rates of growth in house prices after 2005." -- Glenn Hubbard, August 2005

And you argue Hubbard is better than Krugman.

I don't boost economists on the basis of their predictions. Because they're basically meaningless. Anyone can declare disaster every year and then declare themselves vindicated when a recession eventually does hit. Hell, even I did it. I bet on a housing drop in 2005, 2007, and 2008. Obviously, I was inevitably vindicated. But that was more due to dump luck that actual knowledge. Gahaha.

[King]

Paul Ryan's plan is not Mitt Romney's plan.

It basically is. It's the only thing Republicans and Democrats agree on, which is why so much of the oxygen is taken up by Republicans defending the budget and Democrats attacking it. Taking Ryan as his running mate despite easily more electorally helpful candidates out was perhaps the most meaningful endorsement imaginable. He had to actually commit himself to Ryan. Far more meaningful than saying "oh, I will reform entitlements. True story bro, trust me."

And the Ryan budget, does it really conform to your beliefs? From what I've read of your posts, it doesn't.

[後援会]

And the Ryan budget, does it really conform to your beliefs? From what I've read of your posts, it doesn't.

Every little bit in it? No, not really. But what parts of it that actually matter and what the GOP rallies for and the Democrats rally against (the medicare reforms)? Absolutely. Because that's not even a question of how big/small we want government to be. Or liberty/equality. Or conservatism/liberalism. That's a question of whether or not we want a government with the fiscal capability of paying for things that aren't entitlements.

Anyways, I'm heading to bed right now.

[Lief 🗽]

The Ryan budget isn't even a detailed budget, it's more a sort of vague set of goals that isn't fully fleshed out:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/29/everything-you-know-about-paul-ryans-budget-is-probably-wrong/

[Beet]

I don't boost economists on the basis of their predictions.

It's not just about being wrong, it's being wrong to such a massive degree that it makes other discussions irrelevant.

You need to check out Brad DeLong's evisceration of the Hassett/Hubbard/Makiw/Taylor position:

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/08/things-wrong-with-hassett-hubbard-mankiw-and-taylor-the-romney-program-for-economic-recovery-growth-and-jobs.html

[pbrower2a]

Really good -- probably not up to the level of the best speeches by Cicero, Lincoln, or Churchill. so I can't give a 10.

Effective for its purpose? Absolutely.  She has practically lifted the entire traditional stump speech of Republicans of recent decades and turned it in favor of Democrats.

[J. J.]

It was a 10, she did touch on real issues and didn't make it all about overselling the personal element. As far a tweets per minute go, Michelle Obama got far more than Mitt Romney got for his speech, so people are responding well to it.

And more than for Obama's SOTU.  

Does anyone know what the hell Obama would try doing in a second term? Besides throwing us off the fiscal cliff by sparking a stupid fight over the current tax crates?

I don't think there is the same pressure on Obama to explain what happens next.  He can make the argument, "It will be more of the same," if "more of the same" is working.  Friday is basically his last shot of making that argument.

OK, even if you take the view that the jobs numbers determine the election, you do realize that this month and next month's numbers will be released before election day?

Yes, but the timing is the key.  A lot of people will be looking at the numbers, and getting a sense of the economy base on the numbers in the system.  If Obama's message is "stay the course," and the course appears to be downhill, that will sway people and they will develop that mindset.  Conversely, if the numbers are good, "stay the course" is a good message and will help Obama.

I'm not sure if October's numbers will be out by Election Day.  There is also another factor. People who voted for Obama the last time, will also be looking at how well he's performed.  It is the "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"  If you're going back to next election day, the numbers are far worse today (though inflation is better).

People have to think Obamanomics is working.  If it looks like the is improving, but not fine, Obama gets a boost.

[Ogre Mage]

Michelle Obama's speech written at seven grade levels higher than Ann Romney's:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2012/09/michelle_obamas_dnc_speech_wri.php

[Averroës Nix]

Effective, I guess? I know that I'm not the target audience, but I find it slightly bizarre that we expect a convention speech from every candidate's spouse. To her credit, Michelle Obama is a natural public speaker, and it's easy to see why so many Dems like to speculate on her becoming a Senator.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I'm glad I didn't watch it......the woman gives me gas.