Romney

[il Padrino Ute]

I prefer the bodacious ta-tas to be on the VP's wife, not the VP!

Edit: unless of course the VP is a woman, in that case either the VP or her wife would be acceptable.

I can understand and appreciate your thoughts here, but I'd rather have the VP tick off progressives when he talks to them, rather than have them think they matter.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

A great deal can change in the next 10+ months, of course, but wouldn't a Romney/Rubio ticket be a winner today, by providing Mitt with Florida and taking a chunk out of Obama's solid Latino base? It also galvanizes Tea Partiers and evangelicals, and his wife seems likely to attract voters who share Goatnapper's primary concerns.


Is Rubio a viable VP pick? He's young and relatively experienced, but Obama's election undercuts that attack since Obama was roughly in the same boat in '08. I know Rubio has said he's not interested, but experience suggests that kind of reticence vanishes when a future president comes calling.

The three oft-mentioned running mates for Romney would be Paul Ryan, Chris Christie and Marco Rubio. I think Rubio is the most likely choice.

Paul Ryan's medicare reform efforts may be too much of a lighting rod and the Democrats naturally would try to exploit it.

I don't think Chris Christie wants to be VP. He wants to finish his term as governor and run for prez at some later time. He would be a great Attorney General, but that hasn't ever seemed to be a position to lead to bigger and better things.

So that leaves Rubio. He brings a lot to the table. I think he would shore up Florida first of all. Second, he excites the base. Third, he'd be the most prominent Hispanic candidate in the country up to that point. It's important for the Republicans to establish credibility with the Hispanic population given their size of the population in Texas and Florida which are gobbling up electoral votes every time a reapportionment occurs. If Romney were to win then you possibly have a future candidate for president ready made should Romney get two terms. If Romney loses, I think Rubio remains as the GOP front runner in 2016.

[calicoug]

You obviously aren't a scientist.

1. The article you posted does a poor job of evaluating the evidence. Reading the author's conclusions is the highway to bring misled by the author's studies. Self-interpretation of the data is far more reliable to drawing one's conclusions. The news author spent the majority of the time talking about the author's conclusions and very little time on the actual study. Buyer beware!

Each of the studies is linked in the article. It's really not difficult to click on them and see what you think too. But yes- any summary of the findings will involve an interpretation by the reader which involves inherent bias. That would be true no matter what article I sent. I liked this one precisely because it gives you the original source if you want to read more.

2. If there are 9 high quality studies and 6 show a statistically significant improvement and 3 failed to show such improvement, the true scientist would state "there is insufficient evidence to support the hypothesis that the intervention resulted in a significant difference". We fail to reject the null hypothesis.

That's only true if we are trying to say there is definite evidence the stimulus worked. That's never going to be possible to say (and neither is the alternative) because we can't perfectly model life without the stimulus. We can do our best to create that model (and there are many ways to fashion it), but for now we are left with multiple studies and the overwhelming majority say it worked. Draw your own conclusions.

3. It was not discussed what is economically significant. In medicine we talk about clinical significance. Just because we find something is statistically significant it may not be clinically significant. For instance, plaque size and zetia...who cares? What patients care about is stroke rates. I am not an economist so I'm not certain what is "economically significant". Just on the surface, GDP doesn't seem like a good measure. Maybe a better marker is disposable income for the lower and middle class.

As I said, i'm not an economist. I have no idea what is right on this issue (sounds like economists don't know, either). I haven't followed this at all. I am not debating the issue, I'm displaying flaws in your argument.

As with any soft science, you will never have 100% agreement. So, we do the best we can with what we have. What we have suggests it worked. People are free to disagree (and there is some evidence to support their view), but it's silly to argue that there is nothing out there to suggest it did work when the majority of data available says it did. That's my point.

[Moliere]

The fact that unemployment went over 8% doesn't mean it failed. It clearly means the administration was wrong about the likely trajectory of unemployment. The argument for the stimulus is that unemployment would have been higher than what it went to without the stimulus. On that point, most every economist I have seen agrees unemployment was reduced by the stimulus.

Whether the stimulus "worked" or not means absolutely nothing. What matters is if people thinker it worked. 9% unemployment makes people think it didn't work, which will sway voted to Romney. Arguing over whether it worked or. It is futile. Elections aren't about facts, they're about rhetoric and Obama will likely lose that battle.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

You obviously aren't a scientist.

1. The article you posted does a poor job of evaluating the evidence. Reading the author's conclusions is the highway to bring misled by the investigator's conclusions to the study. Self-interpretation of the data is far more reliable than relying on the investigator's conclusions. The news author spent the majority of the time talking about the author's conclusions and very little time on the actual study. Buyer beware!

2. If there are 9 high quality studies and 6 show a statistically significant improvement and 3 failed to show such improvement, the true scientist would state "there is insufficient evidence to support the hypothesis that the intervention resulted in a significant difference". We fail to reject the null hypothesis.

3. It was not discussed what is economically significant. In medicine we talk about clinical significance. Just because we find something is statistically significant it may not be clinically significant. For instance, plaque size and zetia...who cares? What patients care about is stroke rates. I am not an economist so I'm not certain what is "economically significant". Just on the surface, GDP doesn't seem like a good measure. Maybe a better marker is disposable income for the lower and middle class.


As I said, i'm not an economist. I have no idea what is right on this issue (sounds like economists don't know, either). I haven't followed this at all. I am not debating the issue, I'm displaying flaws in your argument.

I would love for Obama to discuss all the evidence he has regarding how great the stimulus worked. If the 2012 campaign season is all stimulus (not that kind of stimulus sickos!) all the time, then Obama is going to get his clock cleaned. Given how warmly his new "jobs" bill was received by the public this last fall--which was essentially another stimulus bill-- I don't think people are fans of the first one which has properly been identified as payoffs to Democratic constituencies.

[Viking]

Well that is clearly false. There were perceptible gains- GDP was increased significantly, jobs were created, etc. There are many measurable gains- the question is simply whether it was worth what was paid. According to 6 of the 9 studies conducted on that issue, the answer is yes- we got a good bang for our buck.

As for the S&P downgrade, first- the stimulus was hardly the reason for the downgrade. The incompetence of Congress in dealing with the debt ceiling was clearly their primary concern- they say it in their first paragraph of their report:



Second, even if S&P had said what you argued, is there anyone left who thinks S&P has any credibility at all? Certainly the bond market doesn't.

Third, even if we had spent the stimulus money with "no perceptible gain whatsoever," that doesn't correlate to "hurting the economy" unless you can show it shrunk economic output (and no, you can't).

No, that's not the full release (did I just write that!??).

The actual downgrade and accompanying documentation was far more extensive.

I view the world of value creation simply: equity value increase. Did the equity value of the US increase due to the action? Sure it increased GDP. Want to have a 10% GDP growth year next year? Easy. Spend a shitload. But is that value creative? I've yet to be convinced that government can take debt and create equity. Business does it all the time. Modest leverage to invest in assets that end up creating equity. Government? No fucking way.

Steve Wynn is no Edison, but the man knows how to create value and jobs:

I believe in Las Vegas, I think its best days are ahead of it, but I'm afraid to do anything in the current political environment in the United States. You watch television and see what's going on on this this debt ceiling issue. And what I consider to be a total lack of leadership from the President, and nothing will get fixed until the President himself steps up and wrangles both parties in Congress. But everybody is so political, so focused on holding their job for the next year, that the discussion in Washington is nauseating.

And I'm saying it bluntly that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it and I could spend the next three hours giving you examples of all of us in this marketplace that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our health care costs escalate. Regulations coming from left and right. A President that seems, you know -- that keeps using that word redistribution.

Well, my customers and the companies that provide the vitality for the hospitality and restaurant industry, in the United States of America, they're frightened of this administration. And it makes you slow down and not invest your money. Everybody complains about how much money is on the side in America. You bet. And until we change the tempo and the conversation from Washington, it's not going to change.

And those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it, are going to sit in fear of the President. And you know, a lot of people don't want to say that. They say oh, God, don't be attacking Obama. Well, this is Obama's deal. And it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America.

The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution, and maybe's ought to do something to businesses that don't invest, they're holding too much money. You know, we haven't heard that kind of money except from pure socialists.

Everybody is afraid of the government. And there's no need -- there's no need, you know, soft pedaling it. It's the truth. It is the truth. And that's true of Democratic businessmen, and Republican businessmen, and I am a Democratic businessman and I support Harry Reid, I support Democrats and Republicans, and I'm telling you that the business community in this country is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the President of the United States. And until he's gone, everybody is going to be sitting on their thumbs.

[il Padrino Ute]

No, that's not the full release (did I just write that!??).

The actual downgrade and accompanying documentation was far more extensive.

I view the world of value creation simply: equity value increase. Did the equity value of the US increase due to the action? Sure it increased GDP. Want to have a 10% GDP growth year next year? Easy. Spend a shitload. But is that value creative? I've yet to be convinced that government can take debt and create equity. Business does it all the time. Modest leverage to invest in assets that end up creating equity. Government? No fucking way.

Steve Wynn is no Edison, but the man knows how to create value and jobs:

I was with Wynn until he stated his support of Reid. Obama and Reid share the same political philosophy, which is why this country is in worse shape than when Obama took office.

[calicoug]

Whether the stimulus "worked" or not means absolutely nothing. What matters is if people thinker it worked. 9% unemployment makes people think it didn't work, which will sway voted to Romney. Arguing over whether it worked or. It is futile. Elections aren't about facts, they're about rhetoric and Obama will likely lose that battle.

That's possibly true for the election, but certainly not for policy or for grading Obama's performance.

[doctorcoug]

Each of the studies is linked in the article. It's really not difficult to click on them and see what you think too. But yes- any summary of the findings will involve an interpretation by the reader which involves inherent bias. That would be true no matter what article I sent. I liked this one precisely because it gives you the original source if you want to read more.



That's only true if we are trying to say there is definite evidence the stimulus worked. That's never going to be possible to say (and neither is the alternative) because we can't perfectly model life without the stimulus. We can do our best to create that model (and there are many ways to fashion it), but for now we are left with multiple studies and the overwhelming majority say it worked. Draw your own conclusions.



As with any soft science, you will never have 100% agreement. So, we do the best we can with what we have. What we have suggests it worked. People are free to disagree (and there is some evidence to support their view), but it's silly to argue that there is nothing out there to suggest it did work when the majority of data available says it did. That's my point.

Sure, there is evidence to say "it worked", whatever the heck that means. I can agree with your last argument there.

My complaint about the newspaper author's conclusions is with the way it was presented. Almost no discussion about the data. That is the highway to misleading "evidence". Good scientists never read the investigator's discussion when reviewing a journal...that leads to bias.

Even in "hard science" we very rarely have 100% agreement. Even more fodder to read the data and not the conclusions. Just because there are more studies showing a positive outcome (have we even defined what the dependent variables are?) doesn't prove causality. The principles of the scientific method remain the same regardless of the field in which it is applied...we fail to reject the null hypothesis.

[calicoug]

No, that's not the full release (did I just write that!??).

The actual downgrade and accompanying documentation was far more extensive.

I view the world of value creation simply: equity value increase. Did the equity value of the US increase due to the action? Sure it increased GDP. Want to have a 10% GDP growth year next year? Easy. Spend a shitload. But is that value creative? I've yet to be convinced that government can take debt and create equity. Business does it all the time. Modest leverage to invest in assets that end up creating equity. Government? No fucking way.

Steve Wynn is no Edison, but the man knows how to create value and jobs:

The stimulus was designed to prime the pump a bit and get capital moving in the markets. That appears to have worked- though the extent of the success won't be known for some time yet. The issue with stimulus (always) is whether or not it crowds out private capital- something which clearly did not happen in this instance.

And I was quoting from the full release. Here's the entire document if you want to read it. It had nothing to do with the stimulus.

http://www.standardandpoors.com/serv...ervalue3=UTF-8

[Color Me Badd Fan]

No, that's not the full release (did I just write that!??).

The actual downgrade and accompanying documentation was far more extensive.

I view the world of value creation simply: equity value increase. Did the equity value of the US increase due to the action? Sure it increased GDP. Want to have a 10% GDP growth year next year? Easy. Spend a shitload. But is that value creative? I've yet to be convinced that government can take debt and create equity. Business does it all the time. Modest leverage to invest in assets that end up creating equity. Government? No fucking way.

Steve Wynn is no Edison, but the man knows how to create value and jobs:

I'm sure the government could the prime the pump a helluva lot more than it did and it may indeed provide some kind of temporary increase in demand. Unless that money went towards wealth creating ventures (like Solyndra), then that money is either going to have be paid back or we have to inflate our way out of the bill. So, in order to create a temporary and probably slight uptick in demand we have either taken money out of the economy at some future point in time or we will have to engage in measures that will have detrimental effect on everyone's net worth.

This is what these Keynesian clowns don't understand. As I mentioned before, I really don't see a huge difference between what they actually did and just dropping a shitload of cash in random spots around the country. A large portion of this money went towards shoring up deficits in some of the states -- how exactly is that working out. Now that states are cutting back on these employees, what kind of long term effect are those stimulus dollars having right now? Was the stimulus a wealth creating venture?

Someone in Obama's position had three choices if they were going to go the stimulus route:

1. Do what he did, satisfy the demand side hacks and essentially piss the money away

2. Do what George Bush did and give a large portion of the country a stimulus check, probably about as bad as what Obama did if the dollar amounts were the same.

3. Create either a permanent or at least an 8-10 year change in the tax code that would have allowed the private sector to essentially take the equivalent of that $800 billion and let them pick the winners and losers -- chances are they would have done a better job than the government.

[calicoug]

I'm sure the government could the prime the pump a helluva lot more than it did and it may indeed provide some kind of temporary increase in demand. Unless that money went towards wealth creating ventures (like Solyndra), then that money is either going to have be paid back or we have to inflate our way out of the bill. So, in order to create a temporary and probably slight uptick in demand we have either taken money out of the economy at some future point in time or we will have to engage in measures that will have detrimental effect on everyone's net worth.

This is what these Keynesian clowns don't understand. As I mentioned before, I really don't see a huge difference between what they actually did and just dropping a shitload of cash in random spots around the country. A large portion of this money went towards shoring up deficits in some of the states -- how exactly is that working out. Now that states are cutting back on these employees, what kind of long term effect are those stimulus dollars having right now? Was the stimulus a wealth creating venture?

Someone in Obama's position had three choices if they were going to go the stimulus route:

1. Do what he did, satisfy the demand side hacks and essentially piss the money away

2. Do what George Bush did and give a large portion of the country a stimulus check, probably about as bad as what Obama did if the dollar amounts were the same.

3. Create either a permanent or at least an 8-10 year change in the tax code that would have allowed the private sector to essentially take the equivalent of that $800 billion and let them pick the winners and losers -- chances are they would have done a better job than the government.

What you are after with the stimulus is a multiplier effect (i.e., one dollar of spending returns more than one dollar to GDP). It isn't a 1-1 offset from future debt (and even if it was, with borrowing rates as low as they are now, the US should absolutely be borrowing much more money than it is currently and spending it on projects that we will have to fund eventually at a higher rate). Moody's has done some great work on this which you can read about here if you are interested.

Some government spending would be identical to dropping bags of cash around the country. If you are a Republican, you can thank your party for supporting more or less that concept in the stimulus. About 1/3 of all spending in the stimulus went to tax cuts (generally among the least effective means for stimulus). That reduced the amount available for infrastructure spending (among the most effective forms of stimulus).

[Color Me Badd Fan]

What you are after with the stimulus is a multiplier effect (i.e., one dollar of spending returns more than one dollar to GDP). It isn't a 1-1 offset from future debt (and even if it was, with borrowing rates as low as they are now, the US should absolutely be borrowing much more money than it is currently and spending it on projects that we will have to fund eventually at a higher rate). Moody's has done some great work on this which you can read about here if you are interested.

Some government spending would be identical to dropping bags of cash around the country. If you are a Republican, you can thank your party for supporting more or less that concept in the stimulus. About 1/3 of all spending in the stimulus went to tax cuts (generally among the least effective means for stimulus). That reduced the amount available for infrastructure spending (among the most effective forms of stimulus).

What exactly did Obama say about all those "shovel ready" projects? I forget. lol, infrastructure spending. Please tell me where all that new infrastructure is.

Also, how much input did the GOP have in passing this stimulus bill? All this time I thought ZERO GOP congressmen voted for it and THREE GOP Senators supported it. Who knew they were able to dictate where 1/3 of all the money went? I'm sure that's news to everyone.

You also fail to realize the distinction between some temporary tax cut ("tax benefits" under the stimulus) and a more permanent or lengthy cut. I thought I made the distinction quite clear. Simply put, companies aren't going to rush out to hire new employees because of some temporary $3,000 tax credit.

I know damn well about the multiplier effect you're talking about. And I know that shoring up state budget deficits and forcing the country to foot California's bills has a pretty shitty multiplier effect.

[doctorcoug]

What you are after with the stimulus is a multiplier effect (i.e., one dollar of spending returns more than one dollar to GDP). It isn't a 1-1 offset from future debt (and even if it was, with borrowing rates as low as they are now, the US should absolutely be borrowing much more money than it is currently and spending it on projects that we will have to fund eventually at a higher rate). Moody's has done some great work on this which you can read about here if you are interested.

Some government spending would be identical to dropping bags of cash around the country. If you are a Republican, you can thank your party for supporting more or less that concept in the stimulus. About 1/3 of all spending in the stimulus went to tax cuts (generally among the least effective means for stimulus). That reduced the amount available for infrastructure spending (among the most effective forms of stimulus).

Huh? Now you are really confusing me. Good thing I didn't read this whole thread or i would be lost. US borrowing money to spend on projects right now just seems like sheer stupidity.

Been a long time since I took econ 381, but i clearly remember being taught that fiscal policy is a terrible method to stimulate the economy. Something about time lags...I make no claims to my economic prowess...I defer that to others here.

Some states are nearly a year behind in paying their bills...spending more dinheiro just seems ludicrous. I have friends that have taken out loans just to meet payroll. How is that for stimulus? It seems that paying your bills on time would be a good stimulus.

Just my uneducated thoughts. Dunno if they are right or wrong. Kinda relying on what Dr Spencer taught me many years ago.

[oxcoug]

The three oft-mentioned running mates for Romney would be Paul Ryan, Chris Christie and Marco Rubio. I think Rubio is the most likely choice.

Paul Ryan's medicare reform efforts may be too much of a lighting rod and the Democrats naturally would try to exploit it.

I don't think Chris Christie wants to be VP. He wants to finish his term as governor and run for prez at some later time. He would be a great Attorney General, but that hasn't ever seemed to be a position to lead to bigger and better things.

So that leaves Rubio. He brings a lot to the table. I think he would shore up Florida first of all. Second, he excites the base. Third, he'd be the most prominent Hispanic candidate in the country up to that point. It's important for the Republicans to establish credibility with the Hispanic population given their size of the population in Texas and Florida which are gobbling up electoral votes every time a reapportionment occurs. If Romney were to win then you possibly have a future candidate for president ready made should Romney get two terms. If Romney loses, I think Rubio remains as the GOP front runner in 2016.

Rubio has publicly indicated he isn't interested in being VP - no one really believes that. He's far and away the best choice. As far as we can see, everything is right with this guy, nothing is wrong. Smart as hell, photogenic, Hispanic, in Florida, liked on both sides of the aisle. Gold. If he's willing, no one else matters.

Mitch Daniels will be considered for the following reason - he's hugely respected across the spectrum and he's skilled in paring down government at a moment when reform know-how is what the country needs. He will be an effective partner to deploy to Capitol Hill to win over dissenters.

Paul Ryan is the future leader of the Republican Party and I love the guy - I'd be tempted to take him just because he's young, comfortable and so freaking smart. But the Medicare lightning rod aspect might mean it's not his time. I don't think he'll be the pick.

Condi Rice is favored by some and she has some optical advantages - an effective counter if Obama were to go to the Hillary option. Neutralizes both race and gender which might matter for Romney. But there's unnecessary risks in voluntarily taking on that strong of an association with the Bush admin, especially its costly foreign policy.

A better option on that the gender/race front - and my dark (nuh no, not racial) horse - is Susana Martinez, the Governor of New Mexico. A three-term DA and now Governor, she's smart, has a great personal story, Hispanic, and provides nice regional balance to Romney. Downside is that she's a bit unknown on the national stage, but I think she could be a very smart pick. **P.S. on Martinez - crucial potential value for Romney in neutralizing what will be a toxic illegal immigration topic for him.

Bobby Jindal will be considered simply because the guy's record is so spectacular in LA, he would add a nice ethnic AND southern component.... but he's a bit boring.

Chris Christie has huge upside and huge backdownside. He'd be a hell of a campaigner but his style always lives on the fine line between winning voters and alienating them. Might be too much of a moderate northeasterner like Romney for this cycle. But would still be a bold pick.

Tim Pawlenty would be a safe choice but too safe and this ticket needs some sizzle.

Bob McDonnell is another safe choice and a better safe choice than Pawlenty - he's popular in Virginia, which will help Romney win there and also well known inside the Beltway.

And finally Mike Huckabee wld have to be considered - he balances Romney's stiffness w/ folksy charm and would help mobilize Evangelicals who would otherwise be lukewarm. It would be a choice I wouldn't love but would be pretty bold electorally very effective.

Am I missing any serious contenders?

Bottom line though - some very good options, but Rubio is the best of breed.