My thoughts on what the Romney campaign should do to combat Democrat lies about the economy in the last weeks of the election.
48 thoughts on “The False Narrative Of The Obama Campaign”
Comments are closed.
My thoughts on what the Romney campaign should do to combat Democrat lies about the economy in the last weeks of the election.
Comments are closed.
Romney is running on a warmed up version of the Bush program: tax cuts, less regulation, more trade, more energy production, higher defense spending, and more aggressive use of the US military. Voters know it didn’t turn out well last time, either at home or abroad. Why would they want a repeat?
Fortunately, most voters aren’t that stupid, and will realize that none of those things caused the financial meltdown.
For instance, please explain how low tax rates caused a recession.
I don’t think voters assess causality in such a fine-grained way. It’s more of a gestalt: Bush was President, things were bad. And it cuts both ways: the GOP has had a lot of say over economic policy since the 2010 election, but voters consider Obama responsible.
the GOP has had a lot of say over economic policy since the 2010 election
How so? Do you mean all those budgets that Obama signed? Oh wait, you mean all those executive orders passed out by the Obama administration while he signed continuing resolutions.
How so?
They created the debt ceiling crisis, blocked the American Jobs Act, made it impossible for Obama to replace the director of Fannie/Freddie, etc. Obama’s window for enacting new economic policies closed when Scott Brown was elected, i.e. one year into Obama’s term. Since then the GOP has had a veto.
I thought the debt created the debt ceiling crisis. But I guess in JimWorld, something called a “debt ceiling” is just a number that is supposed to automatically rise to a couple of percent above whatever the debt is — and anyone who thinks otherwise and objects is precipitating a “crisis.”
The Reason article on the real “Deniers” comes to mind, for some reason.
the debt created the debt ceiling crisis
The debt has been rising for decades, and Congress had raised the ceiling time and time again. After all, what’s the point of Congress legislating the spending, and then refusing to borrow the money to pay for it?
The House GOP chose to make it a crisis.
After all, what’s the point of Congress legislating the spending
But they can’t legislate spending because the Democrat controlled Senate won’t pass a budget. They won’t pass a budget, because they are uninterested in compromising with Republicans. And its very easy to see this in the voting, because Democrat Senators also refuse to vote yea for Obama’s budget and they don’t write their own budget.
refusing to borrow the money to pay for it?
The GOP didn’t make it a crisis, Obama has spent an extra trillion a year. That’s why the debt has increased $4 Trillion under his watch. Obama said raising that much in 8 years was unpatriotic. What did he mean by that, Jim? Did he mean Bush didn’t spend enough?
“The House GOP chose to make it a crisis.”
You think it’s a crisis now, Jim, just wait until nobody will loan us money any more.
Or had you forgotten that’s what the Republicans are theoretically trying to do: rein in the government so it stops spending more than it takes in, as opposed to your guy, who loves trillion-dollar deficits.
So, Obama is president and everything is his fault now?
Yes, that’s how voters (who don’t already favor one party or the other) will see things. So the question is: will they see things as good-enough and/or getting-better-enough to justify giving him another term?
“What’s the point of having a ceiling that isn’t a ceiling?” is the question that actually comes first…
There isn’t any point in having it. Raising it doesn’t make things better, and failing to raise it makes things much worse.
I notice that the real purpose of a debt ceiling — to limit expenditures to revenues — isn’t even an option as far as you’re concerned. That’s odd, since the outcome in that case would actually be good.
The problem with cutting taxes is that it increased the budget deficit and the amount of debt of the government. To counter the debt the Fed printed more money and as a result inflation is increasing. Energy, food, etc.
The higher defense spending meant a lot of people which could have joined the work force did not decreasing GDP.
There is more to it than that however. The low tax rates imposed by the Fed were the major cause of the crisis IMO.
Erm I meant low Fed interest rates caused the crisis.
I think you are confused. Inflation is low and not increasing much. GDP goes up the same whether people are working on defense projects or civilian ones. The Fed does not set tax rates — maybe you meant interest rates?
“Inflation” is low because housing prices cratered after the debt bubble. The prices for the things people actually need like energy and food have increased and keep increasing.
Know what isn’t a part of the inflation calculations any more? Food and fuel. But to quote the Obama administration, “Ipads are getting cheaper.”
Wodun already answered this, but I deem the answer insufficiently humiliating to Jim, so I’m going to post it with the quote from Jim’s comment:
Only because food and fuel, two things people have to spend money on every bleeping day of their bleeping lives, has been artificially removed from the calculation. By the Obama Maladministration.
And if that’s still not humiliating enough, feel free to add a few iterations of “you ignorant slut.”
So, it is all Bush’s fault–if he hadn’t alienated the Republican base and hadn’t fallen for that bipartisanship BS then the Dems might not have gained control of Congress in 2006.
It is Bush’s fault, but not for the reason that people think, and it’s nutty to think that Romney’s proposed policies will make things worse.
Why is that nutty? Right now we are running a huge deficit, and have high unemployment. In 2000 we were running a surplus, and were near full employment. And Romney is proposing the same policies now that Bush proposed then. When times are good: tax cuts, cut regulation, encourage trade and domestic energy production. When times are bad: see above. Isn’t it a bit obvious that these policy choices are favors to the GOP base, and not responses to any particular economic situation?
Isn’t it a bit obvious that these policy choices are favors to the GOP base, and not responses to any particular economic situation?
Only to a child, unfamiliar with how economies actually work, and ignorant of the fact that the Bush policies were doing just fine until the Democrats took over the Congress in 2006.
the Bush policies were doing just fine
Measured how? Economic growth? Job creation? Change in the deficit? He did poorly compared to other post-war presidents in all three.
And regardless of the statistics, the American electorate didn’t think they were doing just fine, which is why the Dems did so well in the 2006 elections.
Measured how? Economic growth? Job creation? Change in the deficit? He did poorly compared to other post-war presidents in all three.
Economic growth and job creation were good. The only problem was the deficit, which until recently few people cared about.
And regardless of the statistics, the American electorate didn’t think they were doing just fine, which is why the Dems did so well in the 2006 elections.
That had zilch to do with the economy, which was doing well. The Republican lost in 2006 because of unhappiness with the Iraq war, and a depressed base due to the Republican’s big spending and attempt at amnesty for illegals. The economy didn’t start tanking until 2007. You know, after the Democrats took over Congress? You could look it up.
Or did you not even read my article?
Economic growth and job creation were good
Bush averaged 100,000 jobs a month from February, 2002 to October, 2006; that’s slower than the last year under Obama (150,000/mo). Clinton averaged over 230,000 a month.
It was good enough to keep unemployment low.
The Republican lost in 2006 because of unhappiness with the Iraq war
About that: between Romney and Obama, which one is more likely to pursue a Bush-like foreign policy? Which one has staffed his campaign with members of the team who brought us the Iraq war? Which one talks more aggressively about using military force in Syria and Iran?
Foreign policy is one more reason for voters to see Romney as a rerun of the worst aspects of the Bush administration.
Obama’s greatest foreign policy success have been when he followed the Bush template.
Note that the deficits were steadily decreasing until 2006.
Bush does share the blame for the first of two $700+ trillion “bailouts” (which Obama and McCain voted for).
McCain might have won if he voted against TARP and promised a revision of the 13th Amendment to require elected and appointed officeholders to do a little time as a dunking booth target.
Bush averaged 100,000 jobs a month from February, 2002 to October, 2006;
According to BLS:
Total Non-Farm All-Employees (in Thousands)
Feb 2002: 129069
Oct 2006: 137475
Difference in time is 56 months
That comes out to average 150,000 jobs per month.
Long-term real growth in US GDP per capita 1871-2009
http://visualizingeconomics.com/2011/03/08/long-term-real-growth-in-us-gdp-per-capita-1871-2009/#.UEjUdSJcisg
This is one of the best measures of the economy. It’s been following a steady parabolic trend upward. The significant statistical outliers are The Great Depression, WWII, the Volcker Recession (the inevitable side effect of Paul Volcker’s fix to the hyperinflation problem) and the recent financial meltdown.
But look more closely. The postwar-thru-JFK trend is flatter than the LBJ-to-present line. What happened? I think the magic word is “technology.” Stuff like this:
http://inventors.about.com/od/istartinventions/a/intergrated_circuit.htm
On another note, comparing economies of different Presidents is silly if one does into take into account a) Congressional makeup (Nixon + Dem Congress does not = Clinton + GOP Congress), and b) the fact that economic policies don’t take their full effect overnight.
Do you remember what happened between the recession in Clinton’s last quarter and the housing crash, years of strong growth, low gas prices, and low unemployment? If those years were bad then Obama can’t possibly help the US economy because he’d have to double our performance just to be as bad as the Bush years – and that would remind Democrats of just how horrible those years were – when they had jobs and spending money and stuff.
If the Republican policies are “favors” to the GOP base, maybe it’s a big grab to make everyone their base, because those policies make almost everyone better off. Higher taxes mean less disposable income. Does anyone benefit from less disposable income? Higher regulation means more paperwork and more expensive products for everyone. Are higher prices across the board a good thing or a bad thing?
Less trade? Why would we want less trade? If less trade is good why not blow up the interstate highway system and railroads so people stop all that nasty trading? And how about less domestic energy production so we can give more money to oil producers who pay no US taxes, and less money to domestic energy producers who do, while paying twice as much for the same amount of energy? In what bizarro Democrat world is paying twice as much for the same thing a benefit?
If Democrats pander to voters who support their idiotic policies, their entire party will eventually be made up of stupid people who live in fantasy land.
[nice setup, eh?]
If the Republican policies are “favors” to the GOP base, maybe it’s a big grab to make everyone their base, because those policies make almost everyone better off.
And yet economic growth has historically been higher under Democratic administrations.
You mean the so called jobless recovery? Or the period when oil prices kept spiking and people were betting how long it would take to hit $80 per barrel and later if it would ever hit $100? First the Iraq war then Katrina blowing up refineries in the Gulf Coast. Oil prices only started to decrease after the recession put a damper on demand and now with the embargo on Iran oil prices are going up again but are still lower than at the time Obama took over.
Claiming that lowering taxes is always good would mean that in the extreme you would want to collect no taxes at all and end up with no government. Hopefully you understand why that is a bad idea. The fact is there is an optimum point somewhere between 100% taxation and no taxation. If you look at the periods when the US had most growth in the last century taxation was much higher than it is now which suggests decreasing it will not help solve the growth issues and in fact W himself proved this assertion wrong even if he never managed to cut expenses like he should have if he wanted to follow a monetarist policy. So called “evil” money redistribution policies to the lower classes increase consumption of goods and services kickstarting the economy more than letting rich people buy precious metals.
The first mistake Romney does is to declare that the current defense spending is inviolable in some way. For some reason the US spends a lot more as a percentage of GDP than the rest of the world. Heck I still remember last time they forced the other NATO members to increase expenditures and it’s not like the Soviet Union has risen from the dead. Back then we spent less rather than more. WTF?
The interstate highway system is used for carrying internal US trade as well.
Jim, many of those Democrat presidents had Republican congresses.
Godzilla,
“You mean the so called jobless recovery? ”
Bush had the bad luck of a recession in the last few months of his second term. Unemployment was around 5.7% most of his presidency. Oh if only we could go back to the days when 5.7% was considered the worst economy since Hoover.
“oil prices are going up again but are still lower than at the time Obama took over.”
No.
“Claiming that lowering taxes is always good would mean that in the extreme you would want to collect no taxes at all and end up with no government. Hopefully you understand why that is a bad idea.”
The only people advocating no taxes are the Democrats who think the rich can pay for everything while everyone else pays no taxes.
“The fact is there is an optimum point somewhere between 100% taxation and no taxation.”
Sure there is but what % do the Democrats want? A lot of them want 75-90%. Obama’s OWS wants to seize all the companies and personal property of those they disagree with.
“If you look at the periods when the US had most growth in the last century taxation was much higher than it is now ”
High growth despite higher taxes not because of them. Being the only country who’s industrial capacity was not destroyed in WWII was the driving factor.
“For some reason the US spends a lot more as a percentage of GDP than the rest of the world.”
Because we subsidize the defense of Europe and the rest of the world. People like to bash the USA for military intervention but we are the first people they come to with their hands out asking for help.
Defense spending is about 20% of the budget and that seems about right too me. But making cuts are more difficult than people think. Getting rid of one carrier group has profound impacts on the rest of the Navy and so does cutting 280,000 troops from the Army and Marines. I think there are ways to cut military spending that are not the herp de derp way Obama and the Democrats have done it.
“If you look at the periods when the US had most growth in the last century taxation was much higher than it is now which suggests decreasing it will not help solve the growth issues and in fact W himself proved this assertion wrong even if he never managed to cut expenses like he should have if he wanted to follow a monetarist policy.”
You assume Bush’s policies didn’t prevent things from becoming worse. From today’s vantage point, and compared to historical norms, the Bush years stack up very well, indeed. It is only by comparing them to the unsustainable bubble years of the late 90’s that they come up short.
Furthermore, those earlier periods of high growth with higher taxes of which you speak came at a time when the rest of the world was recovering from a devastating worldwide conflagration. To assume that we can return to those times by tweaking a single number is stultifyingly obtuse.
Because you subscribe to it — a nearly 100% correlation with nuttiness.
So, basically, your prescription is, when times are good, raise taxes. When bad, see above.
You ungrateful pro-freedom bastards, not showing “Il Dufe” the appreciation and gratitude he deserves! Only the ever-servile Jim is worthy of Dear Leader. See:
http://townhall.com/columnists/frankjfleming/2012/09/05/the_first_term_of_obama_has_been_a_failure_of_america
And then there’s this:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/obama-speech-in-one-bumper-sticker/
(Jim asks: “So what’s the problem?”)
Well this all and good but is this the official platform for the 2012 election? To b
Ame Bush for things that happened ten years ago? I think the voters are really asking, “what have you done for me lately?” Or at least the 46 million on food stamps are asking that. Or maybe the millions of disgruntled workers. Its funny the party of progress sure does seemed mired in the past.
Haha, my efforts to post from the Nexus 7 tablet. I’ve scored 195 WPM on a keyboard but those darn touchpads….GRRRRRR!!!!
195 wpm? You should be playing video games for money.
How is the Nexus 7?
[Aykroyd voice] Jim, you ignorant slut. [/voice] {Thanks, McGehee}
Why is Jim an ignorant slut? He’s a slut because (it’s a great classic SNL line and) not once has he responded to Rand’s article regarding the housing ‘crisis.’ Why do I put crisis in quotes? Because it and the aftermath are artificial. The housing crisis was spun as a liquidity crisis so corrupt politicians (or just idiots like McCain) could create a phony crony slush fund right out in the open. It wouldn’t have been a crisis at all if we’d just followed historical precedent (even given that bad loans should not have been forced upon the banks in the first place… and that was spun as evil lenders. Sheesh.)
What historical precedents? You can’t pay your loan? It’s foreclosed. The bank then sells those houses at market rate (now lower due to supply.) The liquidity problem? There is none. Banks should fail for making bad loans, not rewarded. Other potential bankers would gladly fill the gaps. Unless the government does something monumentally stupid like give money to banks that should fail.
During the convention the UAW were crowing about how Obama saved them. Yes, he did, and the country is paying for it. TANSTAAFL.
The economy only works when the government lets it. When the govenment makes the choices you have a form of Fascism. The end result is never good. The end result is like picking bad stocks. Every moment you can imagine things will turn around, but in the end you’re broke. I don’t want America to copy a Russian economy. But Jim does.
For me, the remarkable aspect of Obama policies is the selfishness. It has a gloss of “social responsibility”, but underneath, it’s getting your desires and interests fulfilled at considerable cost to society.
Bush had a budding recession (just begun at the end of the Clinton admin), stock market crash, tech bubble collapse, and 9/11…and while he made mistakes, he and his team essentially righted the ship, got things going again, brought us tax cuts which THEN gave us the largest tax revenues in history, and fairly reasonable unemployment levels. Not perfect but ~5.7% was pretty good for those times.
And of course Bush gets no credit, from the left, for any of that.
So I don’t want to hear any more crap about what a terrible hand of cards Obama was dealt. He had his chance.
He muffed it.
He’s going to be humiliated in the polls come November and get what all excuse-makers get, in the real world:
a swift boot in the butt.
And deservedly so.