How the GOP won the economic spin war: 3 theories

[The Rabbi]

I can see it but you fail to acknowledge the fact that Obama was handed a 1.3 trillion yearly deficit before he ever did anything. TARP, stimulus 1 and the GM bailout were handed to him for the 2009 budget. Can you not see that? Or are you that naive?

DO you see the the deficit as a percentage of GDP skyrocketed under Obama, whose response was to spend more money? Yes or no?

I just told you in the previous post. I'm not going to argue with you if you're going to ignore my point.

I think you just answered my question in the previous post as well...Yes you are that naive.

Do you see the chart? Do you understand that Obama inherited a situation where debt as a percentage of GDP was within norm and expanded spending to ratios not seen since WW2?

This is really pretty simple, you know.

 

[bripat9643]

I just told you in the previous post. I'm not going to argue with you if you're going to ignore my point.

I think you just answered my question in the previous post as well...Yes you are that naive.

So you're conception of a debate is where you state your opinion and then everyone agrees with you?

Go back to kindergarten where you belong.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sounds great until you apply historical context. WW I had ended in 1918 leaving the economies of Europe in shambles. That vacuum allowed American industrial exports to dominate. And those laissez faire policies let Wall Street speculators run wild in an unregulated market setting up Hoover's 1929 crash which devastated our own economy.

It took FDR to save us from the fate that befell the foundering European states. Fascism or Communism.

Damn that history stuff! It always refudiates (thanks, Sarah!) that laissez faire mentality!

Don't you have a toilet to inspect rather than bothering us with misinformation you learned in 7th grade history?

How is it inaccurate? If it's misinformation then what really happened? I'm waiting....

Well, there was the recession of 1919, 7 months. Then the Depression of 1920-21, 18 months. Both cured without massive government intervention.
In WW1 none of the European powers was bombed extensively. Britain retained its Empire. As did France.
The Depression didn't start until well after WW1.
The US was never in serious danger of turning either communist or fascist.
So other than every fact being wrong, there was nothing inaccurate.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How the GOP won the economic spin war: 3 theories - Yahoo! News


And


If anyone knew economics including the dipshat GOP they would know that cutting spending and lowering taxes isn't going to create jobs and reduce deficit at the same time, something has to give.

You know the problem with posting links?

Most people read them.

3. Actually, the GOP is simply right
People believe the GOP because Republicans happen to know their economics, says Tina Korbe at Hot Air. Obama and the Democrats got their enormous stimulus package in 2009, and look how well that turned out.

Your problem is simply an inability to read with context, they don't believe the GOP is actually right.

Your problem is simply an inability to do anything without bias.

We have not had a federal budget in 786 days. That alone proves that the Democrats are not loosing the debate because they are not getting their message out. If they had a message they would have a budget.

The theory that the public is stupid because they can see that the Democrats do not have a budget is even dumber than the theory that the Democrats have a message they are having trouble articulating.

That means that, no matter what the idiots that wrote the oped think, the GOP is simply right when they point out that the Democrats do not know what they are doing.

 

[The Rabbi]

Are you not able to read a chart? Do you not see that the deficit as a percentage of GDP skyrocketed under Obama? What is hard to understand about that?
And if it was a problem before he took office, how is increasing spendign a way to deal with it?

I can see it but you fail to acknowledge the fact that Obama was handed a 1.3 trillion yearly deficit before he ever did anything. TARP, stimulus 1 and the GM bailout were handed to him for the 2009 budget. Can you not see that? Or are you that naive?

So you see that debt as a percentage of GDP increased to unsustainable levels under his administration. OK, we can go with that.
As for TARP, etc. All that is true. But I thought he was elected to end the failed policies of Pres George W Bush, not make them worse.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So you're saying Obama did not increase the debt? Why was none of this a problem when Bush was president?
The truth is Obama has spent and spent with nothng to show for it but high unemployment and IOUs.
The GOP is right, the Democrats are wrong. This is as starkly visible as it ever has been. 3 years of total control by the Democrats, able to enact their biggest pet projects, has been a disaster for this country that will take hard work to recover from.

This is not an ideological argument, it's common sense. The truth is that Obama was always going to have the debt increase under his watch because it was already out of control before he took office and there was a recession. His contribution to the debt is not as large as you believe.

No, the years and years of outrageous government spending will take hard work to recover from. You can't pin this on Obama because it's been a problem for 20 or more years now. It's not like he can suddenly pull out his magic wand or pull money out of his ass. Somebody needs to step up and come up with a solution, otherwise we're fucked.

The truth is that if Obama had stood up and demanded a balanced budget when he first took office he would have been able to get it. He chose, instead, to put his efforts behind a stimulus plan that produced, at best, meager returns on the investment, and managed to add trillions to the deficit. You can stop blaming Bush for everything anytime, it doesn't work for anyone.

 

[Toronado3800]

So you're saying Obama did not increase the debt? Why was none of this a problem when Bush was president?
The truth is Obama has spent and spent with nothng to show for it but high unemployment and IOUs.
The GOP is right, the Democrats are wrong. This is as starkly visible as it ever has been. 3 years of total control by the Democrats, able to enact their biggest pet projects, has been a disaster for this country that will take hard work to recover from.

This is not an ideological argument, it's common sense. The truth is that Obama was always going to have the debt increase under his watch because it was already out of control before he took office and there was a recession. His contribution to the debt is not as large as you believe.

No, the years and years of outrageous government spending will take hard work to recover from. You can't pin this on Obama because it's been a problem for 20 or more years now. It's not like he can suddenly pull out his magic wand or pull money out of his ass. Somebody needs to step up and come up with a solution, otherwise we're fucked.

The truth is that if Obama had stood up and demanded a balanced budget when he first took office he would have been able to get it. He chose, instead, to put his efforts behind a stimulus plan that produced, at best, meager returns on the investment, and managed to add trillions to the deficit. You can stop blaming Bush for everything anytime, it doesn't work for anyone.

Deficit Government spending to me always seems akin to an individual taking out a loan to go to college. Probably worth it as long as you get the diploma.

Oddly enough I did school on a "cash and carry" basis but since then all these businessmen have almost convinced me borrowing for homes and the like is worth it.

If you can get them to disagree, get me and most Americans to save then buy a home, perhaps ppl who do not like deficit spending will end up in power.

Until then more of the same Reagan Reagan Bush Bush and Bush budgets.

 

[The Rabbi]

This is not an ideological argument, it's common sense. The truth is that Obama was always going to have the debt increase under his watch because it was already out of control before he took office and there was a recession. His contribution to the debt is not as large as you believe.

No, the years and years of outrageous government spending will take hard work to recover from. You can't pin this on Obama because it's been a problem for 20 or more years now. It's not like he can suddenly pull out his magic wand or pull money out of his ass. Somebody needs to step up and come up with a solution, otherwise we're fucked.

The truth is that if Obama had stood up and demanded a balanced budget when he first took office he would have been able to get it. He chose, instead, to put his efforts behind a stimulus plan that produced, at best, meager returns on the investment, and managed to add trillions to the deficit. You can stop blaming Bush for everything anytime, it doesn't work for anyone.

Deficit Government spending to me always seems akin to an individual taking out a loan to go to college. Probably worth it as long as you get the diploma.

Oddly enough I did school on a "cash and carry" basis but since then all these businessmen have almost convinced me borrowing for homes and the like is worth it.

If you can get them to disagree, get me and most Americans to save then buy a home, perhaps ppl who do not like deficit spending will end up in power.

Until then more of the same Reagan Reagan Bush Bush and Bush budgets.

Actually most of the gov'ts deficit spending is like maxing out the credit card to pay the maid.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When I read someone say the stimulus did not create any jobs I hear "this person does not understand economics".

Is it up for debate:
-The stimulus dumped money into the economy
-We will pay for it in the future
-We are just barely in the smallest way paying already
-Without that money the economy would be worse
?

Up for debate is the effect it will have on the future of America and if the interest on the debt will make the stimulus a bad decision.

Oh, and yeah and another time trick, 1920 and 1947 were good times to buy stock in American companies. World wars had weakened the rest of the industrialized world and we were blessed because of geographic isolation.

Can you prove that, without the stimulus, it would have been worse? We had many recessions throughout history, and recovered from all of them. The two longest were the ones where the government stepped in and tried to fix it with stimulus programs.

I might not understand economics, but I do understand facts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you not able to read a chart? Do you not see that the deficit as a percentage of GDP skyrocketed under Obama? What is hard to understand about that?
And if it was a problem before he took office, how is increasing spendign a way to deal with it?

I can see it but you fail to acknowledge the fact that Obama was handed a 1.3 trillion yearly deficit before he ever did anything. TARP, stimulus 1 and the GM bailout were handed to him for the 2009 budget. Can you not see that? Or are you that naive?

He ran for office totally aware of the debt. He wanted it, he owns it.

By the way, that "yearly deficit" you keep yammering about applied only to the first year. He could have fought to balance the budget by raising taxes and lowering spending. Instead he raised spending and cut taxes. That was his very first priority once he was in office, which means that most of the deficit for 2009 sits on his head even though the actual budget for that year came from Bush.

Do you really want to ignore the impact of the stimulus package on the deficit? Are you going to keep insisting he inherited something he wanted?

 

[whitehall]

Consider this fazie. Maybe voters are smarter than liberal democrats think, if liberal democrats do think. Maybe voters are aware that democrats controlled congress for Bush's last two years and did everything in their power to destroy the economy. The chairman of the house banking committee said he had ideological blinders on when he told Americans that Fannie was doing well when it was about to collapse under his watch. So far their is no sign that Barney Frank will be indicted for his part in Fannie's collapse. Democrats were on a roll when Obama was elected. They had two years under their belt and they were ready to turn this Country around and destroy capitalism. The stimulous package was the tool and ....what happened? Democrats spent the money, the economy continued to go down while unemployment went up and they lost congress. Now the liberal media picks up the slack and tries to blame republicans but people are better informed than they were when Cronkite was king. It ain't spin if it's true.

 

[uscitizen]

If you understood history, you'd realize that cutting spending and cutting taxes gave us the greatest period of Economic growth in American history and brought use out of the 1920 Depression which was much deeper than the 1929 Depression.

But hey, clearly cutting taxes and spending is a bad idea. Clearly we need to do what Hoover and FDR did. The Great Depression only lasted 12 years. Clearly using the same methods to get out of it will work better this time. We are alot smarter now and know how to intervene in the economy much better. Doing the same exact thing is going to give us different results.

It is an entitrely different game and set of problems now.
We are in a global economy and jobs are hemmoraging to overseas.

 

[uscitizen]

Are you not able to read a chart? Do you not see that the deficit as a percentage of GDP skyrocketed under Obama? What is hard to understand about that?
And if it was a problem before he took office, how is increasing spendign a way to deal with it?

I can see it but you fail to acknowledge the fact that Obama was handed a 1.3 trillion yearly deficit before he ever did anything. TARP, stimulus 1 and the GM bailout were handed to him for the 2009 budget. Can you not see that? Or are you that naive?

He ran for office totally aware of the debt. He wanted it, he owns it.

By the way, that "yearly deficit" you keep yammering about applied only to the first year. He could have fought to balance the budget by raising taxes and lowering spending. Instead he raised spending and cut taxes. That was his very first priority once he was in office, which means that most of the deficit for 2009 sits on his head even though the actual budget for that year came from Bush.

Do you really want to ignore the impact of the stimulus package on the deficit? Are you going to keep insisting he inherited something he wanted?

Yes a 3rd Bush term.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If anyone knew economics including the dipshat GOP they would know that cutting spending and lowering taxes isn't going to create jobs and reduce deficit at the same time, something has to give.

Well, SOMEONE doesn't know anything about economics..

(That would be you, dipshit!)

 

[Uncensored2008]

Your problem is simply an inability to read with context, they don't believe the GOP is actually right.

The GOP is demonstrably right.

Fact on a leftist is like salt on a slug.

 

[Skull Pilot]

How the GOP won the economic spin war: 3 theories - Yahoo! News

New York – A majority of Americans buy the GOP's claims that slashing spending would strengthen the fragile recovery — even if many economists disagree

And

2. Voters don't understand economics
Americans care more about creating jobs than reducing federal debt, says Steve Benen at Washington Monthly. Yet they keep repeating the GOP's "ridiculous message" that cutting spending will help create jobs, and slashing taxes will somehow reduce the deficit when "tackling the deficit would make matters worse, not better, for those hurting most." What's behind this jarring disconnect? "Public ignorance."

If anyone knew economics including the dipshat GOP they would know that cutting spending and lowering taxes isn't going to create jobs and reduce deficit at the same time, something has to give.

Canada Cut Spending, Economy Grew | Downsizing the Federal Government

In the early 1990s, overspending had pushed the size of the Canadian government to 53 percent of GDP, and government debt was spiralling upward. But the nation turned course and began cutting spending and making pro-market reforms such as privatization and tax rate cuts. The chart shows that Canadian government spending was chopped by more than 10 percent of GDP.

As spending was cut, the Canadian economy boomed. Average annual growth matched U.S. growth from the mid-1990s until the recent recession (See Table 1). Canada made a mistake in passing a spending stimulus last year, which pushed up spending temporarily, but government spending is expected to fall again and the economy has already returned to solid growth.

U.S. policymakers would be advised to ignore the Keynesian theoreticians who seem intent on bankrupting the nation. Instead they should take lessons from the success of the Canadian model of spending cuts, balanced budgets, debt reduction, open international trading and investment, sound banking, privatization, and corporate tax rate cuts.

So it seems that cutting government spending does indeed help the economy.

 

[FuelRod]

If you can't understand that more money in citizens pockets equals great tax revenues to the Government you probably shouldn't have the right to vote.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I can see it but you fail to acknowledge the fact that Obama was handed a 1.3 trillion yearly deficit before he ever did anything. TARP, stimulus 1 and the GM bailout were handed to him for the 2009 budget. Can you not see that? Or are you that naive?

He ran for office totally aware of the debt. He wanted it, he owns it.

By the way, that "yearly deficit" you keep yammering about applied only to the first year. He could have fought to balance the budget by raising taxes and lowering spending. Instead he raised spending and cut taxes. That was his very first priority once he was in office, which means that most of the deficit for 2009 sits on his head even though the actual budget for that year came from Bush.

Do you really want to ignore the impact of the stimulus package on the deficit? Are you going to keep insisting he inherited something he wanted?

Yes a 3rd Bush term.

Bingo.

I would rep that, but I gave away too much rep yesterday.

 

[Avorysuds]

If you understood history, you'd realize that cutting spending and cutting taxes gave us the greatest period of Economic growth in American history and brought use out of the 1920 Depression which was much deeper than the 1929 Depression.

But hey, clearly cutting taxes and spending is a bad idea. Clearly we need to do what Hoover and FDR did. The Great Depression only lasted 12 years. Clearly using the same methods to get out of it will work better this time. We are alot smarter now and know how to intervene in the economy much better. Doing the same exact thing is going to give us different results.

It is an entitrely different game and set of problems now.
We are in a global economy and jobs are hemmoraging to overseas.

Serious question here... when have we not been in a global economy and were jobs not an issues around the world during the Great Depression?

Some people want to believe the world is vastly different when it's really just the same, communication is faster and traveling is easier, that's really it. People still bought thing from other parts of the world even a thousand years ago so there has always in fact been a global economy.

 

[Urkie]

Do you see the chart? Do you understand that Obama inherited a situation where debt as a percentage of GDP was within norm and expanded spending to ratios not seen since WW2?

This is really pretty simple, you know.

I see it. I'm not going deny that Obama increased spending. To say otherwise would be a lie but what I am saying that even if he didn't increase spending, he still would have inherited over 1 trillion in debt. So it was guaranteed that debt as a percentage of GDP was going to increase before he became president.