If At First You Don't Succeed, Lie, Lie Again

Discussion in 'Politics' started by sargon20, Jan 30, 2009.

  1. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,377
    Likes Received:
    2,111
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    I like this guy :biggrin1:

    If At First You Don't Succeed, Lie, Lie Again
    By Bill Scher
    January 28th, 2009 - 4:35pm ET


    The House is debating the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on the floor as I write this. And the conservative minority is employing the same tactics that have led them into the minority: failed ideas wrapped in fresh lies.


    The big lie/talking point being repeated on the floor is that their own alternative economic plan "will create 6.2 million new American jobs over the next two years, according to a methodology used by President Obama’s own nominee as Chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, Dr. Christina Romer."


    For the past month, conservatives have been distorting and misapplying Romer's 1994 economic paper to claim that tax cuts offer a huge "multiplier" effect for the economy, and public investment offers nothing. Of course, the conservative claims have been repeatedly debunked, most prominently this past Sunday by Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman on ABC's This Week, but also by Brad DeLong and Nate Silver


    But being debunked hasn't ever stopped conservatives before. So they released an alternative plan that is all tax cuts, no public investment, then used their fictional Romer formula to calculate it would create 6.2 million jobs.


    BREAKING NEWS (RealityBurg, ObviousLand): We just spent eight years trying to create jobs and grow the economy with only tax cuts and no public investment. It was a colossal flop, no matter how you interpret one aide's academic paper from 15 years ago.


    Of course, that was only one of the lies spluttered out during the course of debate.



    Conservatives continue to employ the strategy as predicted by Marc Ambinder last month: "Think back to the (Bill-Clinton/Joe Biden!) crime bill of 1994, when Republicans rallied their base against the legislation by ridiculing a tiny part of it -- proposals to expand midnight basketball leagues as a way of keeping kids off the streets and out of gangs. Watch for Republicans to settle on a handful of objectionable items and create the impression that the entire enterprise is suspect."


    That's what the attacks against tiny slivers of the package -- family planning services, re-sodding the National Mall, arts funding -- are all about.


    And facts rarely get in the way. I am still seeing conservative congresspeople whine on TV about re-sodding the National Mall, even though that has already been stripped from the bill (and would require hiring people and buying materials to do it.)


    Most importantly, McClatchy Newspapers put the criticisms in proper context: "House Republicans have lampooned some modest spending provisions in the package that have little to do with stimulating the economy, but those measures account for only a small portion of the money."


    Yet they desperately try it make it sound the entire bill is wasteful pork. GOP Rep. Paul Ryan claimed on the House floor that only "12 percent" of the bill in about creating jobs, and "the rest is spending."


    Where to begin with such idiocy?! First, it's not relevant what percent is about creating jobs (though I certainly don't take their number at face value), but how many jobs would be created or saved.



    The Obama administration pegged it at 3 to 4 million jobs, which is in sync with the Congressional Budget Office's high-end estimate of 3.6 million jobs by next year (though CBO notes that more skeptical economist predictions put the low-end estimate at 1.2 million jobs.)


    And those jobs would be largely created by the spending, the investment in tangible projects that our crumbling neglected infrastructure is crying out for.


    Second, the other large portions of the bill are not on pork, but education, unemployment benefits, other aid to state governments as well as tax cuts mostly geared to working families (apparently for conservatives, tax cuts don't count unless they go to CEOs).



    These initiatives are not necessarily designed to create jobs -- a comprehensive economic strategy involves more than one thing! -- but to forestall job and service cuts that would undermine federal stimulus, and give the squeezed, unemployed and impoverished funds to they can survive and keep money flowing in the overall economy.



    It's bottom-up stimulus, not more failed trickle-down nonsense.


    There are fair arguments to be made against the plan. For example, there are respected economists concerned that the bill does not spend enough to move our $15 trillion economy.


    But no one with any expertise and credibility is advocating another around of conservative tax cut rehash that amounts to, as my colleague Isaiah Poole put it, "used junk on eBay."


    Perhaps that's why the past month of conservative nonsense has done nothing to move public opinion, which is strongly for President Obama and strongly for an economic recovery bill like Obama's which is "a combination of tax cuts and transportation, education and energy projects."
    One Republican political operative worried that his party risks becoming "a talk-show party." That's what the conservative House minority has done to the party today.


    Lies are the lubricant that keeps conservative talk radio cranking and the conservative diaspora detached from reality. But today's reality is too stark for most to be ignored, which is why the continuation of a lie-based strategy is bound to keep conservatives mired in irrelevance.


    UPDATE: And now it has passed the House, 244-188, without a single Republican vote. House conservatives have sent a clear signal to the nation: we are not renouncing our failures of the past, and we are not part of the solution you voted for. Good luck with that.
     
  2. B_Nick4444

    B_Nick4444 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,002
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    so, when the Obama plan fails, and makes things worse, when it is clear that a particular party was not involved

    are we going to have a replay of the James Earl Carter Administration, and conservative resurgence afterward?
     
  3. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Dude, is your moonshine bottle more than half empty tonight or what?
     
  4. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    it's like Bushie tell us how safe he kept the united states for 8 years, just keep repeating it until you make everybody think it true. Obama bad Bush good.........
     
  5. HazelGod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    7,531
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Other Side of the Pillow

    Seriously, Nick?

    This attitude amounts to the puerile equivalent of passively sabotaging the honest effort to right a situation gone badly wrong for the express purpose of feeling morally justified in pointing the finger and saying "I told you so" if that effort fails.

    It's reprehensible in any capacity...but these clowns were elected to represent the best interests of their constituents. You cannot honestly tell me you believe that the best they can do for their districts is to sit back and refuse to help fix the mess they helped create?

    Heinlein had it correct...suffrage as a birthright really does just seem to be an idea noble in theory, but utterly impracticable due to vagaries of human nature (willful ignorance, greed, apathy).
     
  6. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    More libs that think writing checks will fix everything.:rolleyes:

    Each new job that is created from this stimulus package will cost about $140,000. He's buying jobs.

    One Democratic Congressman, on defending the pork in this bill retorted, "Old habits die hard in this town."

    Change anyone?
     
  7. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    That's why the Republican ideal for the new stimulus package, which was voted down by the House, amounted to a "blank check". Looks as if conservatives were ready to grant themselves an unlimited supply of taxpayer money.

    At least the one the House approved had an actual budget and a dollar figure.
     
  8. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    but vinyl if the Republicans don't get their way how will Wall Street give out $18b in bonuses next year again?
     
  9. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    They could always resort to recycling cans. :biggrin1:
     
  10. D_Cyprius Slapwilly

    D_Cyprius Slapwilly New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Unless it doesn't fail, of course, then we will likely have another 50 or so year realignment - much like we did after FDR - where the far right wing remains marginalized and largely out of power. Kinda hard to make those crazy predictions at this point.
     
  11. B_Nick4444

    B_Nick4444 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,002
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    no, not seriously

    thought it was obvious I was having fun with the OP's post

    (I think VB got it)

    the problems are deep and serious, and resolution will require measures not contemplated by either ideological bias

     
    #11 B_Nick4444, Jan 30, 2009
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2009
  12. HazelGod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    7,531
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Other Side of the Pillow

    It probably was obvious...I just had to get up way earlier than I'm accustomed to this morning. Mea culpa.
     
  13. sparky11point5

    sparky11point5 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston
    I think it is interesting how history gets reinterpreted and sometimes misrepresented. I have heard the following over the last few weeks from conservatives.

    -- Tax cuts create jobs and government spending does not
    -- Increased tax rates and government spending extended the Great Depression
    -- The only way to influence the economy is to manage the money supply

    My take is that the Great Depression was largely the result of financial speculation and lack of effective government regulation, When the financial markets collapsed, the economy got into a state that it could not repair itself, as it could to less severe shocks. FDR, inspired by Keynes and his belief that the government was the only actor who could help, using massive government spending to re-start a healthy economy.

    Now, Keynesian economics lasted into the 1970s, when government spending (on Vietnam and the Great Society) seemed to not work anymore. We had inflation and recession, the infamous 'stagflation'. Starting with Reagan and Paul Volker, we turned to monetary policy to try and stamp out inflation and prime the economy. We became politically and economically committed to deregulation, and despite allowing our manufacturing sector to disappear, we had over 25 years of reasonable growth. (At least for the upper tier of society.)

    This worked until 2008 and the bursting of another speculative bubble. The federal funds rate is now effectively zero, so monetary policy is not going to work. Certain tax cuts might help, as long as people spend or invest the money. This is the problem with most of the dogmatic calls for tax cuts -- I think most people will simply save any money and this will just balloon government debt.

    So, my point is, we might have gotten to a point where the only way out is government spending. Banks won't lend money. People won't spend or invest tax savings. I think it is really the only option.

    Of course, not all spending is helpful, and the Dems have loaded the stimulus package. But, this seems to me like the only option.
     
  14. D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,539
    Likes Received:
    1
    starinvestor: "More libs that think writing checks will fix everything.:rolleyes:"

    ----------

    A trip down Memory Lane

    George Bush seeks a Pentagon budget of $624.6 billion for 2008.

    In the overall budget of 2.9 trillion for the 2008 fiscal year, Bush seeks to increase military spending and to trim 78 billion from healthcare programs.

    "My formula for a balanced budget reflects the priorities of our country at this moment in its history: protecting the homeland and fighting terrorism, keeping the economy strong with low taxes, and keeping spending under control while making federal programs more effective," Bush said.

    "The president's budget is filled with debt and deception, disconnected from reality and continues to move America in the wrong direction," Senate budget committee chairman Kent Conrad, a Democrat, said.




    June 30, 2008: George Bush signs a $162 billion war spending bill

    Those big bad libs holding the Congressional majority loaded up this bill with such "pork" as doubling the GI Bill college benefits for troops and veterans and emergency flood relief for the Midwest.


    Bush Says the Economy is Bad Because they Built Too Many Houses

    George and Laura were on the Today Show and interviewed by a fawning Ann Curry in Africa. When she asked George just how bad Americans feel over the economy, Bush responded:

    Bush: ...I'm convinced fifty years from now people will look back and say, Thank God there were those that were willing to sacrifice.

    Curry: But you're saying you're going to have to carry that burden. Some Americans believe that they feel they're carrying the burden because of this economy.

    Bush: Yeah, well…

    Curry: They say we’re suffering because of this.

    Bush: I don’t agree with that.

    Curry: You don’t agree with that? It has nothing do with the economy, the war, the spending on the war?

    Bush: I don’t think so. I think actually the spending in the war might help with jobs.

    Curry: Oh, yeah?

    Bush: Yeah, because we’re buying equipment, and people are working. I think this economy is down because we built too many houses (Curry: hmmm) and the economy is adjusting. On the other hand we're just about to kick out 157 billion dollars to our taxpayers......what would have happened had we abandoned Iraq when times were tough and let those soldiers die in vain?..
     
  15. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,377
    Likes Received:
    2,111
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    Funny how Star falls silent when facts, inconvenient truths, get in the way. Facts have a liberal bias as they say.
     
  16. B_bi_in_socal

    B_bi_in_socal New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    0

    I don't know but I hope I'm part of the ones collecting instead of the poor bastards pissing and moaning for their next Obama welfare check.
     
  17. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,377
    Likes Received:
    2,111
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    I bet you listen to Rush daily. I detect a similar 'intellect'. We all know who got welfare under Bush, the people who least needed it. There has been a redistribution of wealth all right, from the bottom up.

     
  18. HazelGod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    7,531
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Other Side of the Pillow
    I can hear Lex grinning from all the way over here. :biggrin1:
     
  19. B_bi_in_socal

    B_bi_in_socal New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    0

    You people sure do have a hard on for Rush lately.

    Hmmm, wait a minute...

    Bush....

    Rush....


    I have to hand it to your party leadership. They really know how to spoon feed the new letters to you idiots. lol
     
  20. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,377
    Likes Received:
    2,111
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    You do know that Obama heads the federal government which has no 'welfare' program thus distributes no 'welfare' checks. So no one will ever get an 'Obama welfare check'. But don't let that get in the way of your hate.

    See above. You are the idiot. Bush had welfare checks but they were for Wall Street not Main Street.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted