This election should put it to an end, anyway:
The DCCC is running ads about Kristi Noem’s speeding tickets, Keith Fimian’s home-inspection business, Jaime Herrera’s business-card expenses. Tennessee Democrat Lincoln Davis accuses his opponent of “a history of violent and threatening behavior.”
As we all know, Jack Conway is running an ad on the Aqua Buddha. The DSCC is running an ad saying that because Pat Toomey did work for a Chinese company, “maybe he ought to run for Senate . . . in China. (Gong noise.)” We all know how much of the DSCC attacks on Christine O’Donnell have been about her personal finances, and how much fun they had with Linda McMahon’s wacky on-camera performances as part of the WWF. And the White House, of course, is screaming from the rooftops that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce must prove their innocence over their unsupported charge of using foreign money.
Yet few if any endangered Democrats are running on health care and the stimulus, or to argue that the past two years represent serious improvement in the lives of Americans. They don’t want to talk about their ideas, or their record.
They should stop telling themselves the fairy tale that Americans, deep down, agree with the liberal agenda; Americans have had two years of the liberal agenda and are, by and large, vehemently rejecting it.
Unfortunately, I suspect that delusion will spring eternal.
The answer to the Usual Suspects and these campaign ads is this:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/republicans-kind-of-suck-which-is-why-they-will-win-huge-in-november/?singlepage=true
You see, all of these sources are reminding us that the Republican’s are like my neighbor’s yipping wiener dog. Annoying. Truly annoying and blood-pressure raising and sleep destroying.
But who the Republican’s are up against are like the zombie apocalypse. Existentially annoying and perhaps civilization ending.
People will gladly go for the speeding tickets and the witchcraft and the Aqua Buddha, whatever or whoever that is supposed to be, over the zombie apocalypse.
The problem with the zombie apocalypse is that the zombies love it, and they vote.
Obama has an approval rating in the low 40s. I can’t help but wonder how in hell it could be that high? I’ve got relatives that are zombie voters. They have no idea about issues or what’s at stake, but they are reliable and consistent voters but only if there is a D after the name.
You can’t change their vote and you can’t discourage them from voting.
I’m hoping O’Donnell is right and nobody is paying attention to new voters that are voting for the first time and not for the incumbents.
I do blame Republicans for this dismal mess because you don’t blame the child, wild animal or zombie.
Ken, OJ’s approval rating with the brothers and sisters was still high despite and/or due to (take your pick) mudering his white ex and her jewish BF.
Yet few if any endangered Democrats are running on health care and the stimulus, or to argue that the past two years represent serious improvement in the lives of Americans. They don’t want to talk about their ideas, or their record.
That’s true. TARP is a great example: it was a bipartisan policy, saved us from a depression and numerous big companies from bankruptcy, and was a bargain — we may end up making money. And yet it is one of the least popular government policies in the last 20 years.
What can politicians — Dems or Republicans who voted for TARP — do? You don’t win votes by telling voters that they’re misinformed. And this year they are very, very misinformed. They think federal taxes have gone up, when they’ve gone down. They think there’s been a surge in the size of government, when there hasn’t. They think the health care reform has increased the deficit, when it hasn’t.
Faced with that yawning chasm between popular belief and reality, it’s no surprise that politicians change the subject.
Ken, OJ’s approval rating with the brothers and sisters was still high despite and/or due to (take your pick) mudering his white ex and her jewish BF.
Ah, now that’s the enlightened commentary on racial issues that I expect to find here.
Coward.
“They think federal taxes have gone up[sic.] will go up Dec 31 by law.”
“They think there’s been a surge in the size of government, when there hasn’t[sic.] it has indeed continued both pay raises and an increase in personnel.”
“They think the health care reform has increased the deficit, when it hasn’t[sic.] will raise premiums, reduce accessibility, and eventually dominate the federal budget.”
“And this year they are very, very misinformed.” Wait, no. That one’s spot on.
Damn, strikethrough struck down. C’est la vie.
Indeed, if you exclude the 2009 financial crisis expenses, federal spending rose by 9% in 2010.
But oh no — they’re “misinformed” just like that teabagging CBO and anyone else who can add.
But oh no — they’re “misinformed” just like that -censored- CBO and anyone else who can add.
How dare you use such a pejorative sexual epithet you homophobic automaton?!?
Al, the politically correct crowd can make any slur it wants against anyone to the right of themselves. See, that’s why it’s called a “double standard,” get it? /rolleyes
You don’t actually need to be “to the right” politically, just not a member-in-good-standing. Witness Juan Williams. I was with my daughter at a playground in a different neighborhood one day and can still boggle at how much edge could be worked into the current “correct” terms.
Hey Jim,
How about the repeal of the prohibition bill? How do you stand on that issue and how do you think the politicians should use their stance to influence the voters?
Indeed, if you exclude the 2009 financial crisis expenses, federal spending rose by 9% in 2010.
Which, countered the drop in state and local spending, comes out to no surge in government spending overall.
But oh no — they’re “misinformed” just like that teabagging CBO and anyone else who can add.
Go ahead, show me where the CBO says that there was a surge in overall government spending.
Overall government spending grew at a 6% annual rate from Q12001 to Q42007. From Q42007 to Q22010 it’s also grown at a 6% annual rate. There’s been no surge.
it has indeed continued both pay raises and an increase in personnel
No, it hasn’t — there are fewer government employees today than when Obama took office. Just check the stats at bls.gov.
Sorry, meant to write:
Which, countered by the drop in state and local spending, comes out to no surge in government spending overall.
That’s true. TARP is a great example: it was a bipartisan policy, saved us from a depression and numerous big companies from bankruptcy, and was a bargain — we may end up making money. And yet it is one of the least popular government policies in the last 20 years.
There’s a good reason why. Bottom line is that TARP rewarded people for making bad decisions and saddled the US public with those mistakes. It doesn’t take a Nobel prize winner to wonder how long to the next market failure and how much of a bailout that’s going to require. Further, there was blatant favoritism, such as the union-biased bailouts of the automobile companies and some creative accounting. For example, GM apparently paid for the government loans acquired during its bankruptcy using TARP money.
And TARP might make a profit? Right. I stumbled across the above solid indication of TARP unprofitability just while researching the GM story. That trick only make sense, if you’re trying to hide the absence of profit.
No, it hasn’t — there are fewer government employees today than when Obama took office. Just check the stats at bls.gov.
That’s for all government employees not federal government employees. It’s not local and state governments’ jobs to increase spending in a recession.
2008: 5.3 T
2009: 6.0 T
2010: 6.4 T
Hi All,
Here is a link to a table of Federal Employment since 1962 from the official source, the Office of Personal Management.
http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/TotalGovernmentSince1962.asp
Some interesting points. Peak employment on the table was in 1968 at 6.639,000. It then declined more or less steadily until 1980 when it reversed under President Reagan, going from 4,965,00 in 1980 to a high of 5,301,000 in 1987. Then the declined continued until employment was 4,129,00 in 2000. It stayed between 4,100,000 and 4,200,00 until 2009 when it increased to 4,430,000.
So based on the table we are seeing the largest expansion of federal employment since the Reagan years, which were also during a recession, but the federal workforce still has about 1 million fewer workers since then.
OK, enough data. You may return to your arguing.
Bottom line is that TARP rewarded people for making bad decisions and saddled the US public with those mistakes.
“Saddled” how? We’re getting the money back, give or take $30B.
Letting the banks and car companies survive the crisis does create moral hazard, but the alternative was to let them take the whole economy down. Teaching them a lesson might feel good, but it would have meant unnecessary suffering for millions of people who didn’t do anything wrong.
That’s for all government employees not federal government employees. It’s not local and state governments’ jobs to increase spending in a recession.
Right, in fact states are in general constitutionally prevented from doing so. But voters still incorrectly think that overall government payrolls have increased, when the opposite is the case.
2008: 5.3 T
2009: 6.0 T
2010: 6.4 T
Yes, and spending was growing before that as well, at roughly the same rate, in the absence of a crisis that generated (for example) an additional $100B/year in unemployment benefits, increases in Medicaid (more poor people), Social Security (unemployed over-62s deciding to take benefits), etc.
The only major new spending program was the stimulus, about $550B spread over multiple years, with much of it sent to the states to offset their cuts.
The “surge in spending” is a myth.
“Saddled” how? We’re getting the money back, give or take $30B.
As I see it, that’s pre-election fantasy. For example, GM paid it’s TARP debt back with TARP money for a “profit” to the taxpayer. Here’s the context. Government put in something like $3 trillion dollars over the past two years into bailouts, stimulus, etc and is declaring a near profit on roughly a quarter of that money while ignoring the rest. How about the Fed’s massive purchases? Are those showing a profit? How about the ARRA money? Where did that go?
Without a complete accounting of all relevant federal funds, these numbers for TARP are meaningless. I should add that in the real world, companies don’t repay massive debt (with generous interest) in months. The money has to come from somewhere.
My money is on a massive pre-election shuffle of public funds that would be felonious, if any private company were to try it.
Letting the banks and car companies survive the crisis does create moral hazard, but the alternative was to let them take the whole economy down. Teaching them a lesson might feel good, but it would have meant unnecessary suffering for millions of people who didn’t do anything wrong.
It’s not about “teaching them a lesson”. It’s about cleaning out bad business in order to make opportunities for good business. For example, what would evolution be like, if nothing ever died? Life on Earth probably would probably have stagnated at the pre-cellular stage (of which nothing exists nowadays to our knowledge).
We’re not only encouraging future bad behavior, but we’re keeping around the failed companies that will fail again when the next recession hits. At some point, we need to break the cycle. That means necessarily sacrifice (what you term “unnecessary suffering”) by millions of people in order to build a better future.
Too big to fail should mean too big. It’s a de facto admission that they shouldn’t have been allowed to grow that big under the antitrust laws. So sack the top tier executives, and split the company into some sensible number of divisions. Sacking the executives and using the bankruptcy laws to pursue as much of their salary and parachutes as possible gives a personal incentive to assume a tad less risky position.
Jim, I’d say you’ve established beyond any doubt that there’s at least one very, very misinformed voter.
Thomas, thank you for that correction. But there’s a “but”. Your table doesn’t include FY 2010.
As it turns out, FY 2010 federal government employment was expected to rise by another 150,000 civilian employees plus a modest increase in the military side.
150,000? Jesus, that’s insane. Think about how long it takes to grow a company to 150,000 workers. Decades; that’s the size of a gigantic international megacorp. And someone imagines a need for that many new employees in just one year?
This is Alice in Wonderland. Only an utter delusional could think of this as business as usual. Give me 150,000 employees and I will undertake to run the entire Federal government. I mean, take out SS and Medicare and other Ponzi scheme where the Feds just rob Peter to pay Paul, so all you need is someone in the middle to cash Peter’s check and write Paul a new one, and the military, which is a separate organization, and we’re talking 2.1 million employees for a roughly $900 billion operation. Amazon.com runs a $25 billion operation with 25,000 employees — so the Feds need 100 times the number of employees for a 30x bigger operation? Blech. Idiots. Expensive idiots.
Karl,
[[[Thomas, thank you for that correction. But there’s a “but”. Your table doesn’t include FY 2010.]]]
That is because the table shows actual reported numbers, not estimates. The lack of FY2010 simply reflects the normal delay between the end of a Fiscal Year and the final tabulation of data for it.
Agencies need time to report on their employment and then those figures need to be verified before being added to the table. The FY2010 figures will be added in a few weeks.
Yes, given the trend the FY2010 figures should be higher, but any provided before the final tabulations are only estimates.
Carl,
[[[150,000? Jesus, that’s insane. Think about how long it takes to grow a company to 150,000 workers.]]]
You are demonstrating the fallacy of using physical numbers when you should be using percentages. 150,000 workers would only be an increase in the federal work force of 3 percent. That is far less then the percentage increase in 2009.
For example, GM paid it’s TARP debt back with TARP money for a “profit” to the taxpayer.
Where do these statements come from? The government isn’t claiming a profit on the auto bailouts. See the link I posted above:
I should add that in the real world, companies don’t repay massive debt (with generous interest) in months. The money has to come from somewhere.
It came from assets going from worthless — because the economy was collapsing — to being worth something, in a matter of months. This happened in the real world, right in front of your eyes.
It’s about cleaning out bad business in order to make opportunities for good business.
Running unemployment up to 25% does not make opportunities — it destroys good and bad businesses alike by depriving them of customers.
Jim, I’d say you’ve established beyond any doubt that there’s at least one very, very misinformed voter.
Feel free to point out any errors of fact.
150,000? Jesus, that’s insane.
Give me a break. As even the Washington Times article points out, the federal government had roughly twice as many employees per capita in 1953 as it does now. Relative to the population it serves, the federal payroll is wasting away.
Feel free to point out any errors of fact.
Been there, done that. It doesn’t seem to do much. You just go silent after getting pummeled to the mat, and then surface later with fresh injections of surface-plausible lunacy downloaded from Obamabot HQ, or whatever. I’m not fully convinced you don’t have a positronic brain.
Jim, I see you’re quite willing, yet again, to go with the con job that’s taking place now before the 2010 elections. We’re not going to find out until later what screw ups the Obama administration is hiding now. The fact that you take at face value the link you posted is merely another testament to your enduring gullibility. Keep in mind once again that TARP is around $700 billion, ARRA was a similar amount of money, and the Fed spent at least $1.25 trillion, perhaps as much as $2 trillion in secretive investments. Of this money, we’re only told the disposition of the TARP money and some of the ARRA money. In particular, you are a fool for ignoring the Fed money, the Great White Shark in the tank.
Running unemployment up to 25% does not make opportunities — it destroys good and bad businesses alike by depriving them of customers.
That will be your excuse each time the US economy takes a dive? You don’t get it. This isn’t a one time thing. We have centuries of boom/bust cycles (perhaps even millennia), going back as far as humanity has had formal economies. Leaving failed businesses in place is like littering. How are the good businesses going to get ahead (or for that matter have the opportunity to hire people), if every few years the failed, inefficient businesses gets bailed out?
And where’s your evidence that we were facing 25% unemployment? Keep in mind that people don’t lose their jobs merely because their business goes bankrupt. People lose their jobs because they cease to provide something of sufficient value.