At least one polling agency, Gallup, now has support for the stimulus increasing again after Barack Obama's salesmanship efforts:
Since polling on the stimulus has been all over the board, we'll probably want to wait for confirmation from at least one other polling agency before we regard the trend as statistically significant. But it would be surprising if this were not true. Obama is a highly skilled and highly popular politician. He can package ideas in a way that a typical Democrat can't.
Obama can also command the media stage in a way that no other Democrat can -- and in ways that no Republican can. I don't particularly buy that the press, as a whole, has a pro-Republican bias (although certainly some individual outlets do). Rather, they have a pro-conflict bias -- conflict sells copy -- and for the most part conflict mean Republicans going after the Obama agenda. But if the White House calls a press conference, or organizes a field trip to Indiana, that story will lead the day in virtually all outlets.
Most of the increase in support has come from among Democrats rather than Republicans or independents. As I argued the other day, I don't think that Obama needs to be worried about maintaining an approval rating in the high 60s or low 70s. Instead, he can stay in the high 50s or low 60s by maintaining the support of: (i) Most -- ideally, almost all -- Democrats; (ii) A clear majority of Democrats; (iii) a handful of sympathetic Republicans. That's roughly how Gallup has support breaking down on the stimulus, with 82 percent of Dems, 56 percent of independents, and 28 percent of GOPers now approving.
2.12.2009
Obama Sells Stimulus; People Buy
@ 8:31 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
85 comments
That would be a clear majority of independents, presumably.
A typo on item #2, there?
Must not have had that cup of coffee before posting!
Now if folks will cut Obama some slack on the TARP fund plans. They can't be specific yet, because some fundamental questions have not been answered, chief among them--what are the "toxic assets" really worth? Over the very near future Treasury may have to apply pressure to the banks to get them to accept a very low figure. They want to hang onto this crap in hopes someday they might be worth something--just like folks hung onto stock in silent movie producers after The Jazz Singer came out...
The stimulus was still a win for Obama. It was also a learning experience. He now knows the repubs WANT to be the party of division still, and will now use that against going forward, I expect very effectively.
Economically though, he needs to get some traction int he economy somewhere, if this stretches into 1009 he has problems holding all his seats.
Nate - Burris now is completely ineffective if he runs. The IL Seanate seat needs to move WAY up the likelihood to change stats!
Obama has already screwed up the TARP, the TARP needed to be used to give everyone in the country a low rate mortgage - effectively a huge tax cut for the middle class - and the banks need to go under and be taken over by the Feds like they did in the S and L crisis. BTW, taking over the banks that have made themselves insolvent costs NOTHING, or nearly so.
fred...
If this stretches into 1009 then perhaps he can hope a landing by the Vikings or the Danes might divert people's attention...
:o)
Awesome for him but look, Americans approved of the Iraq war too for a while.
The point is, is what is passed going to be good? The answer to that is no. It's going to be better than nothing, but it's definitely going to be less than it could have been. Moreover some of the things in might make no change or actually worsen the situation.
So can it actually do what needs to be done? I doubt it. What needs to be done? Well in my opinion (which is never humble, a trait I share with SABR guys) soften the fall for middle and lower class, while restructuring the system to prevent this from re-occurring without at least 10 years of republicans fucking things up, and laying the groundwork in its projects for a future that will deliver us from man-made climate change and finite energy reserves.
Perhaps we need ot take the country back to the ideals of the Founders. The Founders' economic theory was that they were not afraid of wealth. They were petrified by excessive debt, and followed the REPUBLICAN Roman ideal of moderation. Sad to say, the wealthy elites have followed the IMPERIAL Roman more of excessive and ostentatious consumption and display. Read up on the character of the Founders.
LOL! Yes, I meant 2010, not 1009.
That said, 1009 was a good year, I remember it fondly:
"The Battle of Kreta occurred in 1009 near the village of Kreta to the east of ThessalonÃki. Since the fall of the Bulgarian capital Preslav under Byzantine rule in 971, there was a constant state of war between the two Empires. From 976, the Bulgarian noble and later Emperor Samuil successfully fought against the Byzantines but from the beginning of the 11th century the fortune turned to Byzantium, which recovered from the severe losses. From 1002 Basil II launched annual campaigns against Bulgaria and seized many towns. In 1009 the Byzantines engaged the Bulgarian army to the east of ThessalonÃki. Little is known for the battle itself but the result was a Byzantine victory. Five years later, the Byzantines decisively defeated the Bulgarian army at Klyuch and by 1018 the country was thoroughly conquered by Basil II."
Obama won a bare majority of 53%. His popularity is a lot more apparent than real. Expectations have never been so high. Zero will own the economic "catastrophe" by the summer when unemployment most likely reaches double digits.
As his "stimu-less" bill becomes unmasked for the social policy wasteful spending creation that is and results do not materialize, his failure will become manifest and the country will turn away.
Enjoy your moment in the sun, Libs, its gonna be brief and you are about to get rained on!
* * *
FYI—
taxcheatstamps.com
I had to use "the Google" to get to the website and then bought my stamp! They take Paypal.
Mark your dollar bills (over Geithner’s signature) and let America know how tired we are of Zero's hypocritical double standards!
@Nate: fix that typo "of: (i) Most -- ideally, almost all -- Democrats; (ii) A clear majority of Democrats; (iii) a handful of sympathetic Republicans."
You should say "clear majority of Independents...."
Sorry to be redundant here but your argument looks strange til you fix this.
*SIREN*
BREAKING POLL
Rasmussen to release new stimulus numbers at 10:30 AM. However, crosstabs available to premium members now (why am I still paying for this)
44% of voters support stimulus package, up from 37% last week.
40% oppose, down from 43% last week.
"Independents" oppose the stimulus 40%-46%, but "moderates" support it 53% to 28%.
So the pollster that leans the most right on issue polls has the public supporting the bill. Obama won this debate.
Nate:
Perhaps you should get an intern to read your posts before they go up. The typos are a bit too frequent, and a distraction from your otherwise thoughtful and interesting posts.
MN,
I think it will be good. Its not big enough by itself to start a recovery, but its big enough and effective enough to substantially raise the bottom of the trough.
Conference committee has made this much more efficient by replacing some of the worst parts with highly efficient spending. (And I say this as someone who would have gone from renting to buying with that 15K tax cut for home buyers that was eliminated).
Keep in mind too that Obama has other major spending initiatives in mind. So the size-effectiveness shouldn't be judged by the stimulus alone.
I wonder how much of the rising stimulus approval is the President's salemanship and how much is the public perception that the Senate bill is better.
Rightly or wrongly, the media narrative is that the House bill was partisan w/ $$$ for contraception and ACORN and such, but the Senate bill, and the bill now coming out of conference is a lot "cleaner."
"I don't particularly buy that the press, as a whole, has a pro-Republican bias (although certainly some individual outlets do)."
This statement betrays that you read way too many lefty blogs. It would be completely jarring to a righty (not me) who thinks it's common knowledge that the media has a liberal bias.
And it's not just righties who think that. Here are two examples of polls that show that many more people think there's a liberal bias than a conservative bias:
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/news-events/news/press-releases/cpl-media-election-oct08
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/general_current_events/media/americans_see_liberal_media_bias_on_tv_news
Whether or not there's a bias either way is not the issue. It's just that your statement is likely to make readers trust your judgments less if they don't come from the minority of people who commonly hear of accusations that the press has a pro-Republican bias.
Is there really a meme out there that there is a "pro-Republican" bias in the media? Good grief.
As for the popularity of the stimulus plan, who cares. The question is whether it will work, and so far the guessing is no. Obama has promised 4 million new jobs, but the bill is not a real stimulus bill so much as a grab back of liberal policy goals. Obama's economic plans, at this point, look amateurish. Jimmy Carter anyone?
The mainstream US television and print media is pro-Republican, and it works like this, or has since 1992...
1) If a Republican president is at 50% approval, e.g. Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush before 2005, the primary message is that that president is a God, a deity who must be worshiped.
Endless amounts of column space are given to propagandists who literally drool about the presdent's "historic greatness", brush-clearing cowboy machismo, etc.
It is assumed to be "mainstream" to talk about violently attacking "liberals", that is, anyone who deviates from supporting authoritarian rule by a right wing president.
A few Krugman types are given a chance to express very academic criticism; however, prime time types are showcasing Ann Coulter implicitly threatening Krugman with death and so on.
Under these circumstances, they most certainly never demand that the Republican Leader be "bipartisan", bwahahahaha.
Far left web site conspiracy ravings are certainly never discussed. (Granted, they usually shouldn't be, but see below.)
2) If the Republicans are devastatingly unpopular despite all the propaganda, the mainstream print and television moves to a more defensive position.
They relentlessly demand that the Democrat be "bipartisan" and adopt Republican policies which are unpopular and which he ran against.
But they're as eager to go into an attack, however flimsily justified, as a cat watching a mouse hole. Any "scandal" (evidence or not) or policy that can be misrepresented will do.
Far right web site craziness is often brought into the mainstream ("some" think that Vince Foster was murdered by Bill Clinton, John Kerry is banging an intern, etc.)
For a few days they thought that the "stimulus" was going to make Obama unpopular, and it wasn't pretty. Was I the only one who was unlucky enough to see the rantings of Chris Matthews et al?
Harold, these are ravings from a partisan. Chris "Thrill up my Leg" Matthews is once of your examples of a pro-GOP slant? The media treated W as a "God"? I supposed NPR, CBS, and the NYT are now right wing too? Open your eyes man.
The media, other than Fox and talk radio, is liberal. Period. The fact that folks on this blog think otherwise is a sign of wishful thinking.
Thank you, harold, you're absolutely right about the bipartsianship demands of Democrats that never saw the light of day under W from 2000-2006, as seen in how after the 1994 Republican Revolution, the cover of TIME magazine was a stampeding elephant, while after the 2006 Democratic Revolution, the TIME magazine cover was a purple-dominated pie chart showing the "New Middle".
It's ok, my diverse generation has had enough and we are mostly voting-age now, so most of these conservative masochists will be going into retirement homes and graves while we enter our 30s and 40s, and the new Rational Democratic Majority will at least give us a chance of resurrecting the ideals and well-being of our nation.
Newview,
Our founders were every bit as divided over the question of having federal debt as we (i.e. our Congress members) are on the stimulus package. Alexander Hamilton in particular was in favor of maintaining a permanent federal debt. So I'm not sure it's accurate to say that our founders supported the type of moderation you're speaking of.
Seriously, we're not going to do the biased media thing again, are we? The debate is simple, main stream media outlets are biased towards one thing- $$$$$. They report what will make them money. Conflict makes money. Aggressive behavior makes money. Statistics and in depth analysis do not make money. Some news stations generate their own conflict in order to make their money, but don't think for a second that they wouldn't switch sides if they thought they could make a little more money presenting things from the other side. Mr. Burns sums it up nicely:
Homer: You know, Mr. Burns, you're the richest guy I know. Way richer than Lenny.
Mr. Burns: Oh yes. But I'd trade it all for a little more.
Fox - R Bias
CNBC - R leaning Neutral
ABC - Neutral leading R
CBS - Neutral
CNN - Neutral
MSNBC - D Bias except for Scarbourough
I'd say that's the spectrum there.
But, here is the problem. CNN often gets caught up in GOP talking points and distraction politics.
For example CNN, up until Hillary gave her speech at the convention, were in a complete frenzy regarding the PUMA's, split of the Democratic party, hostility between Hillary people and Obama people. It became impossible to even turn on CNN more than 20 seconds before you heard something of this conflict. This was a perfect example of the GOP controlling the media with scandal and distractions.
Even recently, until Obama got out in front and saturated every station with his message, the GOP controlled everything and rather than discussing what Obama would rather be discussing ei, how many jobs per state will be created or saved, what kind of assistance the states will get, etc, CNN and FOX and even MSNBC's morning show were busy talking about birth control, sod on the mall etc.
Liberal Defender of Freedom is on drugs!
See above!!!
The major nets are all cpatives of the liberal media and CNN is completely in the tank for Obama and the Dems (with the exception of Lou Dobbs who is neutral).
is is amazing that these pink types would try and peddle this BS!
I suppose he is also agaisnt free speech and all in favor of the "Fairness Doctrine." A nice euphemism for censorship. Perhaps the "final solution to Rush Limbaugh?
I came here to comemnt about the stimu-less bill and how little Zero is doing for the people.
His tax break amounts to $13 a week. Risable.
Yet he is going for the AMT patch which will help only the rich. In a big way.
Change we can believe in?
You are all a bunch of dupes!
Oy Nate ..
UPDATE:
Rasmussen ALSO had a 7 point BOUNCE in Stimulus Support ...
Looks like I should hire Obama to promote my New Business ...
Scarborough: "Perhaps We Don’t Know What We’re Talking About" On The Stimulus
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/10/scarborough-stimulus-confession/#comments
Seriously, President Obama could have gotten over a trillion to "stimulate" the economy. If both he and his advisors hadn't undestimated the dickishness of Boehner, Cantor, McCain, Kyl and DINO Ben Nelson, he may very have gotten it. In the future, Obama should bypasss the Washington establishment and instead take his message directly to the American people. Compare this week to last, and it becomes clear he has people power behind him. If he's smart he'll use it, because Harry Reid and the Democrats sure a shit aren't gonna move his agenda forward. For whatever reason, perhaps right-wing bias in the MSM, these politicians have been AWOL for the past two weeks, while the president has been out there doing the heavy lifting.
Oh All of a sudden Pete Kent is FOR the "Small People" ...
Your corporate media at work:
– Charlie Gibson: And as you know, there’s a lot of people in the public, a lot of members of Congress who think this is pork-stuffed and that it really doesn’t stimulate. [ABC, 2/3/09].
– Stuart Varney: The stimulus package, really has lost a great deal of public support, in part because it has not been presented honestly. [Fox News, 2/9/09]
– Tom Brokaw: All the polling, including what you just showed us, indicates that the American public may have some real reservations about this stimulus plan. [MSNBC, 2/10/09]
– Bill O’Reilly: The majority of Americans are now opposed to spending a trillion dollars on social engineering and other liberal causes. [Fox News, 2/5/09]
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/10/scarborough-stimulus-confession/#comments
Wow, PeteKent is still on here! I thought after Obama's decisive win, he'd have packed his bags and moved to a new country where his narrow minded drivel is still taken as gospel by the majority of the lemmings. But, on the bright side, we'll still be entertained by his thoughtful banter.
I think that there are 2 primary reasons support went up:
1. The price tag went down (almost unheard of in Washington).
2. Things added in, such as AMT relief, seem very reasonable to most people.
But the bottom line is that economists do not agree on whether the stimulus will work or not, and the public is even more clueless.
"Jeff said...
Harold, these are ravings from a partisan. Chris "Thrill up my Leg" Matthews is once of your examples of a pro-GOP slant? The media treated W as a "God"? I supposed NPR, CBS, and the NYT are now right wing too? Open your eyes man.
The media, other than Fox and talk radio, is liberal. Period. The fact that folks on this blog think otherwise is a sign of wishful thinking."
Just because the right-wing has spent the last 40 years attacking the main-stream media as "liberal" doesn't make it true!
It's just idiotic to talk about "liberal bias" among a bunch of multi-billion $ corporate empires.
Here's an example of what passes as journalism in the mainstream media:
Fox passes off GOP press release as its own research -- typo and all
Summary: In purporting to "take a look back" at how the economic recovery plan "grew, and grew, and grew," Fox News' Jon Scott referenced seven dates, as on-screen graphics cited various news sources from those time periods -- all of which came directly from a Senate Republican Communications Center press release. A Fox News on-screen graphic even reproduced a typo contained in the Republican press release."
There's virtually no difference between FOX and the other mainstream news outlets. They all get their talking points from Drudge and Rush Limbaugh. He just finished bragging about how he gets stories (since totally discredited) into the mainstream media.
NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, FOX are not owned by radical anarchists, they are owned by vast multi-national corporations! What bias exists is exclusively of the Murdoch variety -- extreme right-wing bias.
And before any idiot talking point like Pete Kent's comes in about how the reporters and editors are somehow independent from conservative board room influence, just forget it!
Anyone who's worked in that industry KNOWS how they bend over backwards to avoid any hint of "liberal bias." They never worry about taking their talking points straight from right-wing propagandists!
The stimulus debate is only one example: Despite the complete marginalization of the right wing in 2 elections and the fact that Democrats now control both Congress and the Presidency, more than TWICE as many Republicans as Democrats were on the news shows, all attacking Obama's plan.
Since Republicans control barely a third of Congress how is it that the "liberal media" put TWICE as many of them on TV and how is it that the "liberal media" was totally dominated by RIGHT-WING talking points, taken word-for-word from Republican Party press-releases!
@ eezie-
Please post a link or two that give details to support your claims that tax cuts have been removed and spending has been restored into the stimulus bill.
I really hope you are right, Nevertheless, I would like to have solid evidence when I call my Senator, the very influential Arlen Specter, to thank him for his efforts.
Change we Can Believe In?
Zero came to the WH on a pledge to change Washington and do away with the old order. Is it surprising then that for about an hour last week, until former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle withdrew his nomination as HHS secretary, President Obama shared the record for including the most congressional alumni in his Cabinet?
Even without Daschle, Obama has six congressional appointees in top posts -- Solis, Commerce Secretary-designate Judd Gregg, Interior Secretary Salazar, Secretary of State Clinton, Transportation Secretary LaHood and CIA Director-designate Leon Panetta. Daschle would have been the seventh.
How can you claim to be intent on changing Washington when your government is being run by Washington’s old guard?
* * * *
As noted elsewhere—
taxcheatstamps.com
I had to use "the Google" to get to the website and then bought my stamp! They take PayPal.
Mark your dollar bills (over Geithner’s signature) and let America know how tired we are of Obama's hypocritical double standards!
Zero: Hypocrisy you can believe in!
PeteKent: Zero will own the economic "catastrophe" by the summer when unemployment most likely reaches double digits.
As his "stimu-less" bill becomes unmasked for the social policy wasteful spending creation that is and results do not materialize, his failure will become manifest and the country will turn away.
Nice predictions. It would be nicer if you provided evidence or reasoning to back it up. I could just as easily say that the package will help alleviate the worst of the crisis and that things will be roaring back to life just in time for the 2010 elections--but I still wouldn't have much of a basis for that claim other than speculation, which is all I see above. (Also, why does this summer matter more than next summer? Most people already think things will get worse before they get better anyway, so how does that fall on the present administration?)
His tax break amounts to $13 a week. Risable.
If true, so what? We tried tax breaks last time around. Most of it didn't get spent, so the stimulative effect was minimal. Why this focus on tax cuts as stimulus when recent evidence showed they were not very effective?
Yet he is going for the AMT patch which will help only the rich. In a big way.
Yup. Pushed by Republicans. It's called compromise. If that's what's necessary to get the rest of the package through, then deals have to be made. Welcome to politics 101.
Cugel,
Calm down. I stipulate that Fox has a right wing bias. Fine. CNN, NPR, NYT, CNBC, CBS, NBC, Wash. Post, etc do not. The only people who believe that these are "conservative" are far leftists who believe that the Democratic party is itself conservative. I assume, giving your Chomsky-like rantings about "corporations" and "the establishment", that you are in this class of leftists.
As for the poor press for the stimulus bill, that is easily explained. The bill stinks, and will fail.
fred...
Ah, for the days of Preslav and Samuil...
:o)
Some organs of the press are unabashedly right-wing, such as Faux News. Beyond this fringe there is a tendency to cater to the right wing in much of the rest of the MSM, principally because they are afraid of being accused of liberal bias. Among its most effective tools, the GOP has the "liberal media" shiv, which curiously has a similar effect as cowboy rifles in old Westerns--one shot, no matter where it is aimed, and ten Indians dropped dead. All John Boehner has to do is show the hilt of this weapon, and the MSM fall in line like sheep. They have allowed themselves to be convinced that when the GOP aligns itself with any issue, that this represents a true "other side of the coin" which must be repeated verbatim in their newscasts, even when the GOP's points are just plain old bitching.
Frederick Douglass, the great black orator and battler for civil rights, complained that, twenty years after the end of the Civil War, the history books were treating the conflict as a romantic Battle Between Brothers, and that each side was as noble as the other. Douglass correctly pointed out that this was hogwash. There was a good side and a bad side in that war, just as there is presently a good side in American politics (those who want to engineer a recovery to the economic mess) and a bad one (those who merely want to carp, complain and drag their feet about any proposal the good side wants to make).
But the MSM are inured to their trembling acquiescence to histrionic claims of "liberal bias". They are never going to change, particularly now when most newspapers face threats to their very solvency and existence. As long as there is a Matt Drudge and Rush Limbaugh, and the acorn-brains who listen to them, the MSM will continue to cower, cringe and cave in to their complaints.
Here's my concern:
We may be trying to repair a $2.5T hole with a $800B patch. As far as I'm concerned half measures are worse than no measures. State budget deficits across the nation may exceed $400B. California itself has a $42B shortfall.
The stimulus plan has about $275B tax cuts so that leaves $525B for new federal spending minus $400B less state spending and we're left with $125B. Wait! There's more! We haven't counted cuts to local budgets. Could that total $125B? I'm thinking it will be more. We might have LESS government spending in 2009 than we had in 2008. Where's the stimulus in that?
Well, at least the Republicans will be happy. No, that's not their way. Their way is to groan and complain about the liberals while they're getting everything they want.
We are Not All Keynesians Now!
Good ripostes, Jeff. Cugel is clearly a frustrated Marxist.
To dsimon:
There is virtually nothing in this bill that will fill the gap in economic activity caused by the present downturn. Too little of the $$$ gets into the people's hands too late. By 2010 we could have expected a recovery even if we did nothing. This bill will only add inflationary pressures which are likely to kill off the nascent recovery and sweep the Dems from Congress. The stagflation caused by the crowding out effect of this Bill and the high interest rates it will engender will assure no real return in 2012 to the economic levels we experienced before the recession began and this will sweep the Obama from the WH.
Obama plainly did not design this bill for its recovery aspects, but to achieve a social policy agenda. His economic calculus is a bit beyond me now, but I am sure his motives are malevolent – or he is woefully ignorant, which based on Monday’s presser is an even money bet.
What he should have done was lower tax rates on a permanent basis for business and the people thereby creating the conditions for confidence and robust growth.
This is what RR did in 1981 when he came into office facing 10% unemployment and 20% interest rates. He slashed the tax rates and the economy roared back. Dubya did pretty much the same thing after 9-11 and also restored prosperity.
The kind of Keynesian stimulus that is the underpinning of Zero's plan has been discredited for years. It never worked and produced the stagflation of the 50s and 70s and the inflation of the 60s. Only "trickle down/supply side" economics has been shown to truly usher in sustained prosperity and smooth out the natural economic downturns one expects in the business cycle.
The present crisis was caused by the federal government using the banking system for social engineering purposes, lead by Messrs, Carter, Clinton, Frank and Dodd. That the pigs on Wall St were only too happy to feed at the trough (enabled by Greenspan and Geithner) should surprise no one.
That is what happens when you let Democrats meddle with the economy.
Ah yes, the "good side and the bad side". It's critical thinking of that quality that I've come to expect of this comments page. Very astute Fred.
Lordy, idiocy on media bias from the left and the right. Did anyone read Nate's comment: it's a conflict bias. If there's a broad middle consensus and the attack comes from right- (or left-) wing extremists, the media will try to make the views look balanced to maximize the conflict, amplifying the perception of the polarization all around, now from the right, now from the left (not to deny that editorial depts. of individual outlets have individual biases). And here, by shouting "right bias", "left bias", you just buy into the conflict model and the false dichotomies it gives us.
"Only "trickle down/supply side" economics has been shown to truly usher in sustained prosperity and smooth out the natural economic downturns one expects in the business cycle."
So this collapse was expected? And the Republicans (who were in charge) did nothing to stop it?
Wow.
Tbender:
I said nothiong about collapse, dope.
I was taking about the ebb and flow of the business cycle.
The cycle cannot be well-predicted -- if it could be people could make lots of money on it. And the fault is not the GOP's but the Dems for creating the legal and poltical conditions where banks were impelled to lend to people who had no business borrowing.
Read Michael Calderone in Politico http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/
Plouffe's behavior is astounding. And puts the lie to Obama's claim of openness and transparency. Worse he has given aid and comfort to an authoritarian regime and its dictator who want to install himself as another one of those tin pot "Presidents for Life." What the heck was he doing in Azerbaijan in the first place? Collecting more money for Bill Clinton?
That is what happens when you let Democrats meddle with the economy.
Heh, perfect wingnuttery. Cognitive dissonance much? Seriously, after the last 8 years Republicans have no credibility. They all need to go sit in the corner and STFU.
Dude, when you look in the mirror, do you see Mary, Queen of Scots?
It never ceases to amaze me that a site that is at the top of the game in statistical measurement, analysis and prediction embraces an economic theory that might as well have come from the Dark Ages, has long since been disproved, and is clung to only by the most hopeless political hacks.
Keynesian multipliers, the bogus religious doctrine around which this "stimulus package" is built. might as well be batting average and RBI, for all their utility and predictive power.
It just goes to show that the commitment to rigorous statistical understanding only goes so far; and so-called liberals will throw real Friedman economics under the bus when it stands in the way of putting and keeping the 'right people' in power.
I don't get how the Stimulus Bill emerged from the Senate-House conference with a price tag of $789 billion when Specter,Collins and Snowe had already agreed to $838 billion the previous day,making the bill filibuster-proof.
Oh yeah,Harry Reid was there ,taking personal charge of the negotiations! So he caved in and agreed to reduce the amount by $49 billion (which could have been used to support the governors in their time of great need) when it was totally unnecessary.
Harry Reid,once again the best weapon the Republicans have.He's beyond pathetic.
Another bad day in the markets. The stock market is a very accurate predictor of economic sentiment (all those invisisble hands). It seems the capital amrkets have little (I should say "Zero"?) confidence in Obama's plan.
Who exactly are the liberals on CNN?
Lou Dobbs? (7 - 8 pm ET)
Campbell Brown? (8 - 9 pm ET)
Larry King? (9 - 10 pm ET)
Anderson Cooper? (10 pm - midnight ET)
Then we have 'Headline News':
Jane Velez-Mitchell? (7 - 8 pm ET)
Nancy Grace? (8 - 9 pm ET)
Lou Dobbs? (9:00 - 10:00 pm ET)
Which, if any, of the above are LIBERALS?
As to the people appearing on the networks political talk shows, the 'guests' are exactly that - GUESTS. They are invited to appear.
They don't just walk up to the network news room, state 'I'm here to discuss [this or that] and magically appear on the show. They are specifically ASKED by the network to appear on the show, and as a guest, they can say 'Yes' or 'No'.
Do you think that many Democratic Representatives or Senators, or members of the Obama administration are saying 'No' when asked to appear on a network show to discuss the stimulus package?
In the troglodyte GOOPers' minds they are.
Then why the 2-1 bias for GOOPers on the talk show?
Because the talk shows are asking them in a 2-1 ratio.
Why are they asking them in a 2-1 bias?
To generate CONFLICT.
They are not there to inform the public. They are there so the network can attract viewers so it can sell advertising, and thus get dollars - the more viewers, the more it charges.
PeteKent:
Too little of the $$$ gets into the people's hands too late. By 2010 we could have expected a recovery even if we did nothing.
That may be true. But if we're going to have a recovery so soon anyway, then why bother proposing tax cuts as stimulus if a stimulus isn't needed--especially when tax cuts are generally regarded as even worse stimulus than direct expenditures since most people will save the money?
This is what RR did in 1981 when he came into office facing 10% unemployment and 20% interest rates. He slashed the tax rates and the economy roared back. Dubya did pretty much the same thing after 9-11 and also restored prosperity.
First, that's an argument for a tax cut for general economic purposes, not for a stimulus. Second, you assume cause and effect when you previously said economies can recover on their own anyway.
But most flawed, it repeats the pleasant tune of supply side economics where all tax cuts are free. Too bad the evidence doesn't support it. I recall recessions some time after RR and W. Bush cut taxes. I recall over 15% of every tax dollar going to debt service when Reagan was leaving office, and an economic slump under his successor.
Then H.W. Bush raised taxes (because the tax cuts weren't producing the bonanza of revenues that supply siders say they do), and Clinton did so further without a single Republican vote (sound familiar?), and the supply siders said it would kill the recovery. Instead we had one of the greatest periods of growth in recent history (even pre-tech bubble).
Only "trickle down/supply side" economics has been shown to truly usher in sustained prosperity and smooth out the natural economic downturns one expects in the business cycle.
Shown by whom? The Reagan tax cuts did not usher in sustained prosperity. If they had, H.W. Bush would have won a second term. Nor did his tax hikes and Clinton's tax hikes kill off sustained prosperity. It seems pretty clear to me that the overall economy is just not that sensitive to changes of a few percentage points in marginal tax rates.
What are we going to believe: ideology, or facts?
The present crisis was caused by the federal government using the banking system for social engineering purposes, lead by Messrs, Carter, Clinton, Frank and Dodd.
Gee, I don't recall these guys telling banks to leverage themselves by over 30:1. I think it was the free market folks (see Greenspan) who kept arguing that no government regulation is necessary because these institutions will always do what's in their own rational interest and so will stay out of trouble. I don't think it was a solely Democratic initiative to repeal Glass-Steagall.
But again, don't let the facts get in the way of what would be a perfectly good ideology if only the real world conformed to it.
If you're going to propose massive tax cuts, be responsible enough to propose the massive spending cuts that would have to accompany them to make it fiscally responsible. If the supply siders are right, then we can add programs back in when the revenues materialize. But no supply sider wants to risk proposing anything that actually asks anything of anybody.
Not that spenders are necessarily any more responsible. I think Democrats are missing an opportunity to prepare people for the necessity of higher taxes down the road when this crisis is past us. Yes, taxes that are too high will impede growth, but history shows that paying what we did under Clinton is no impediment to strong and sustained economic expansion. That would make a good starting point for discussion (and it's shameful that Obama can be called "socialist" when under his proposals no one would pay more than they did under Clinton in the 90s).
The bowels of government are going to get clogged on all of this stimulus, that they may need a stimulus of their own! See e.g.:
"The Department of Energy's failure to give out $38.5 billion in energy project support is raising questions about whether the program can handle three times as much money in the pending stimulus package," the Washington Times reports.
(http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/12/congress-adds-billions-to-stalled-energy-plan/)
BREAKING NEWS!!!
OBAMA BURNED: GREGG WITHDRAWS AFTER POLICIES TOO MUCH TO STOMACH
Thu Feb 12 2009 16:18:14 ET
For Immediate Release:
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Senator Gregg Statement on His Withdrawal for Consideration of U.S. Commerce Secretary
Sen. Gregg stated, “I want to thank the President for nominating me to serve in his Cabinet as Secretary of Commerce. This was a great honor, and I had felt that I could bring some views and ideas that would assist him in governing during this difficult time. I especially admire his willingness to reach across the aisle.
“However, it has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the Census there are irresolvable conflicts for me. Prior to accepting this post, we had discussed these and other potential differences, but unfortunately we did not adequately focus on these concerns. We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy.
“Obviously the President requires a team that is fully supportive of all his initiatives.
“I greatly admire President Obama and know our country will benefit from his leadership, but at this time I must withdraw my name from consideration for this position.
“As we move forward, I expect there will be many issues and initiatives where I can and will work to assure the success of the President’s proposals. This will certainly be a goal of mine.
“Kathy and I also want to specifically thank Governor Lynch and Bonnie Newman for their friendship and assistance during this period. In addition we wish to thank all the people, especially in New Hampshire, who have been so kind and generous in their supportive comments.
“As a further matter of clarification, nothing about the vetting process played any role in this decision. I will continue to represent the people of New Hampshire in the United States Senate.”
Another bad day in the markets. The stock market is a very accurate predictor of economic sentiment (all those invisisble hands).
First, we're going to attribute one day's results as a referendum on the economic plan? These ideas have been floating around for weeks. The basic outlines have been known. There has been little doubt that some package like this one would pass. So all that information may have been priced in long ago. Not to mention that the market reacts to all sorts of other things that are going on in the world.
And factually, it was not a bad day. The Dow was down -6.77, the S&P (a broader index) +1.45, NASDAQ +11.21. Just so folks know.
In reply to dsimon:
From today's WSJ . . . .
Reaganomics
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123431484726570949.html
By PETER FERRARA
In his inaugural address, President Barack Obama said, "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified." Or as administration spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said in January, the touchstone is, "What will have the biggest and most immediate impact on creating private sector jobs and strengthening the middle class? We're guided by what works, not by any ideology or special interests."
Unfortunately, this rhetoric is not true. Mr. Obama's economic policy is following not what has been proven to work but liberal ideology.
The best way to understand this is to compare what's being proposed now with what Ronald Reagan accomplished. In 1980, amid a seriously dysfunctional economy, Reagan campaigned for president on an economic recovery program with four specific components.
The first was across-the-board reductions in tax rates to provide incentives for saving, investment, entrepreneurship and work. The second component was deregulation to remove unnecessary costs on the economy. In today's world, that would especially mean removing the onerous restrictions on energy production -- allowing drilling offshore and onshore for oil and natural gas, revival of the nuclear power industry, and construction of more electric power plants.
Third was the control of government spending. In 1981, Reagan forced through Congress not only his famed, historic tax cuts, but also a package of budget cuts close to 5% of the federal budget -- equivalent to roughly $150 billion today. In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan's two terms. By 1988, this spending was still down 14.4% from its 1981 level in constant dollars.
Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which helped win the Cold War, total federal spending declined to 21.2% of GDP in 1989 from 23.5% of GDP in 1983. That's a real reduction of 10% in the size of government relative to the economy.
The fourth component of the Reagan recovery plan was tight, anti-inflation monetary policy, which was spectacularly successful. Inflation was cut in half to 6.2% in 1982 from 13.2% in 1980, and cut in half again to 3.2% in 1983.
We know such policies work because they turned around in just two years an economy far worse than today's. We were suffering from multiyear, double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment, double-digit interest rates, declining incomes, and rising poverty. In fact, what we suffer with today is not the worst economy since the Great Depression, but the worst economy since Jimmy Carter -- the last time liberals were dominant politically and intellectually.
The Obama administration's economic policies do not include any of the four Reagan components. In fact, the stimulus plan is the greatest increase in government spending in the history of the planet. Meanwhile, the Fed is furiously reinflating, sowing more havoc down the line. Mr. Obama is still promising future increases in tax rates by letting the Bush tax cuts lapse, because for ideological reasons he thinks even current rates are too low. And instead of deregulating for more energy production, he is still promising massive increases in regulatory barriers -- through global warming cap-and-trade legislation -- to increased production from proven energy sources to serve an extreme environmentalist ideology.
This is why America seems so hopeless right now, and so depressed. We are stuck going in exactly the wrong direction on economic policy because of currently dominant ideological fashions.
A natural economic recovery will begin sometime this year, not because of the president's policies, but because soon this will be the longest recession since World War II. However, thanks to the administration's retrograde policies -- cut from the cloth of the 1970s and even the 1930s -- the recovery will not be what it should be. Rather, unemployment will remain too high, and inflation will resurge, recreating the disastrous economic results we suffered the last time Keynesian policies were dominant.
Mr. Ferrara is director of entitlement and budget policy for the Institute for Policy Innovation. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan.
The only one "burned" here is Gregg. Not a single question about it! He looks like an imbecile now since a. the overwhelming majority of people support the stimulus plan, and b. he once voted to get rid of the Dept. of Commerce, the agency that he was supposed to lead!
Every day the Republicans look more and more like they don't have a clue. Thank goodness. Things are looking great for the 2010 elections for the Democrats, already. Even Gregg himself said "I know...our country will benefit from his (Obama's) leadership." That apeaks volumes about who got burned and looks like a fool today (yesterday of course it was Eric Cantor but then again Cantor looks and acts like a fool every day). And it definitely is not Obama!
Re Gregg, I see it as another Republican refusing to accept the hand of bipartisanship extended by the administration. Perhaps Gregg should have thought it through before deciding on (and then rejecting) service to his country as Commerce Secretary.
And it makes him look like a flake to all but the right-wingers.
I'd tell you how this is playing in local media if I weren't out of the state for the rest of the week.
Indeed as has been reported the market reversed its earlier 3% losses to finsish the day near even on late-breaking news of an Obama mortgage plan, the details fo which have not been released. Shades of Tarp2.0 last week which was well-recieved when it was a rumor and then when revealed by Tax Cheat in Chief Geithner caused a huge sell off.
* * *
From Yahoo Finance:
Stocks staged a late rally to close mostly higher on Thursday after Reuters reported the Obama administration was working on a program to subsidize mortgage payments for troubled homeowners.
You guys need to learn to ignore PK.
This person has never been correct. Not even once.
He is just a freeptard spreading their talking points.
One of these days they are going to realize that Reagonomics brought us here, and that no one thinks republicans have any credibility.
You can always tell a freeper by his "liberal media" rants. They are as humorous as they are incorrect.
In short people like PK and his new buddy Jeff, are good for a laugh. Just don't waste your time thinking you are going to get rational and intelligent discourse from them.
The last intelligent conservative on this site left a long time ago: VA conservative.
It is nothing short of hilarious that anyone would consider the "trickle down" theory espoused by Reagan as effective. It has not worked. Period. It widened the gap between rich and poor. And it took President Clinton to finally get the budget deficit under control. Reagan was a clueless politician, handled by Donald Regan and others in the WH. The Reagan years were unquestionable some of the worst years in the modern era before Shrub came along and set new low standards.
The facts are the tax cuts do not work. Never have. Shrub proved that in spades. And the people finally said "Enough!" on Election Day. Finally we get an intellectual president who can actually speak in complete sentences and not talk to an audience as if they are stupid.
Ok, I am going to break my rule once.
PK,
Investors are morons, basing anything on the performance is pointless and comical.
There are no natural forces on the markets, just reactions from greedy morons who would destroy a company just to make a buck.
dsalkovi:
"Things are looking great for the 2010 elections for the Democrats, already"
Really how so?
Polls this week suggest over 50% of the voters in CT intend not to vote for Dodd. Just one example.
Do you think this fake stimulus package is going to save the Dems?
If it were so, then the GOP would have grudgingly got behind it. Instead Obama made a huge miscalculation that he could force everyone to go along jsut as they tried with TARP 1.0. Didn't work then, didn't work now.
The GOP will bash the Zero and the Dems with this bad bill for the next four years!
Chuck Todd sums up my feelings on Gregg more succinctly and exactly:
"Just askin,' but did Gregg only discover now that Obama is a Democrat?"
VA COnservative was a fraud . . . IMHO
LOL So says the guy with a reputation as low as MR.
Dang it, I broke my rule twice.
vilanye:
Are you a believer in the capitalist system? Do you refute the laws of economics as espoused by Adam Smith?
You sound really ignorant.
dsalkovi:
You too sound like another who wants to re-write history to suit your ideology. Despite Zero's bashing of our present economy (only making things worse, btw), RR dealt with and solved true calamity (see article from WSJ above-facts are a tough thing). Clinton was lead by the GOP to balance the budget and whatever economic trouble there was during the tail end of GHWB admin, it was mild and over by the time Clinton took office.
I guess that partisans on both sides of the aisle like Sen. Gregg's retreat. I'd also guess that independents don't like it - bad for a New Hampshire Senator. Just yesterday, PPP released new polls about the 2010 New Hampshire senate race, and Paul Hodes slightly beat both republican candidates:
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/02/nh-2010-hodes-leads-tight-field.html
Also, the people of New Hampshire support the stimulus bill by a 50-40 margin (but I forgot the source, sorry).
I have a feeling that Gregg is digging his own grave.
Re Gregg:
Naturally you A-Holes are blaming him rather than Zero who pciked him in the first palce. it was a transparent attempt to wrest another seat from the GOP and it failed. What was Obama thinking?
The Messiah or a Keystone Kop?
Mike in Maryland said...
Who exactly are the liberals on CNN?
Lou Dobbs? (7 - 8 pm ET)
Campbell Brown? (8 - 9 pm ET)
Larry King? (9 - 10 pm ET)
Anderson Cooper? (10 pm - midnight ET)
Then we have 'Headline News':
Jane Velez-Mitchell? (7 - 8 pm ET)
Nancy Grace? (8 - 9 pm ET)
Lou Dobbs? (9:00 - 10:00 pm ET)
Which, if any, of the above are LIBERALS?
Larry King is definately a liberal. But he's basically an "entertainment" talk show host. If he had a liberal agenda, wingnuts wouldn't have regularly appeared on his show for the past 20 years.
Lou Dobbs and Nancy Grace are a couple of kneejerk reactionary arsholes - both are arguably more dangerous than the farcical BillO and Hannity.
Campbell Brown is married to Dan Senor - a partisan wingnut Republican who's still shilling for Bushco. Brown's tiresome "No Bias, No Bull" schtick aside, she's basically a fraud and a waste of space. Jack Cafferty should be in her time slot.
Anderson Cooper is more genuine than Campbell Brown, although barely. Also, wasn't he CIA at one point? Hardly a hotbed of liberalism.
Speaking of shills, Wolf Blitzer has ties to AIPAC. Nuff said.
IMO, the two biggest GOP plants inside CNN are Dana Bash and John King. Bash in particular is blatant with her slanted reporting and right-wing talking points. She was easily the most irritating reporter during the campaign, and her recent hit pieces on the stimulus were pretty shameful. If Bash didn't have a face like a horse she'd be on the FOX Propaganda Nutwork with the rest of the blonde bimbos.
The last intelligent conservative on this site left a long time ago...
...and the first intelligent Liberal/Lefty is yet to show up!
Gregg won't run in 2010:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0209/Gregg_will_leave_Senate_in_2010.html#comments
Wow, the fastest career suicide I've ever seen...
Obama's favorite war is going badly reports the NYTs:
"Taliban suicide bombers and gunmen struck government buildings at three sites" in Kabul "on Wednesday, killing at least 20 people and wounding 57," the New York Times reports.
"It was a complex and closely coordinated attack that demonstrated the ease with which the insurgents could penetrate even... Afghanistan's heavily fortified capital."
(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/world/asia/12afghan.html?ref=todayspaper)
Mmmmm . . .shades of another one-term Prez: LBJ!
Ideologues are never happy (me included). John King is shill for the Dems as far as I am concerned. The very fact that Porridge Gun has to resort to calling them "plants" is proof opf the net's left wing bias.
Did you know he and Dana Bash are married?
The very presence of that old fart, crank Cafferty on CNN is proof they are a Liberal media outlet.
Campbell brown is detestable and Anderson Cooper is a washer woman, wet noodle. CIA? I dont think so.
Also, it was CNN that put that screwjob Glenn Beck on at primetime.
BTW, if you haven't seen this... just watch:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TCR-Beck-Gut-021109.wmv?mid=7325
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/stephen-colbert-does-glenn-beck
Yes, FReeptards. That's how most people see you.
We're seeing a decline in civility here.
There are plenty of other blogs for that, aren't there?
Did you know he and Dana Bash are married?
Yep, that's why I included them togther. Their McCain campaign talking points were almost identical.
My last reply to PeteKent:
I love how the WSJ plays with numbers. It crows about how "nondefense discretionary spending" was down without noting that it makes up only about a third of the budget. Defense spending was way up. Entitlement spending went up. And the touted economic benefits of the tax cuts did not come close to making up the difference. The supply side theory simply did not work in practice. After all, did Ronald Reagan balance the budget or did he preside over the biggest deficits in our nation's history? Did he veto one single irresponsible deficit-laden budget? Sorry, but facts should matter.
Then the WSJ says that federal spending declined as a percentage of GDP from 1983 to 1989. That's fine. But we were still running by far the biggest deficits at the end of his term, so revenues were not covering the costs regardless of what percentage of GDP they happened to be. Again, supply side didn't work.
Expenditures as a percent of GDP dropped under Clinton. They rose under Bush, with a Republican Congress for most of his two terms (and it dropped from '06 to '07 when the Democrats controlled Congress and resurrected pay-go rules). So if one thinks that's a bad thing, one can't blame it all on Democrats, at least not without disregarding very recent history.
By the way, one could argue that the Reagan defense buildup was a perfect example of Keynesian philosophy: a deficit-financed jobs program that boosted the economy.
And as for stock market reactions to fiscal policies, if the 90s are to be believed then the market LOVED a top marginal income tax rate of 39.6%. One can't adopt a "the stock market says what's true" only when it happens to support one's own preconceptions.
Finally, it seems indisputable (and PeteKent makes no attempt to do so) that the taxes we paid under Clinton were no impediment to sustained and broad-based growth. By contrast, W's tax cuts have produced anemic job creation while only the wealthy have done well.
I won't go back to all the election predictions from PeteKent that turned out to be very, very wrong. I only hope that when people are wrong, they engage in some reflection to analyze why that happened, what assumptions they made that were incorrect, and change their views so that they might get a better track record. Or at least demonstrate a little humility in the face of an uncertain future.
The supply side theory is easy to believe because it requires no difficult choices. Keep cutting taxes, and revenues will rise. Of course, the fact that it's obviously wrong at some point (when taxes eventually go to zero) doesn't dissuade the true believers from believing it. The time for ideology is over. The time for evidence-based action has returned.
Yes, the stimulus may be too small and/or too late. That's a legitimate critique. But we've seen that tax cuts are relatively ineffective, and we've already done what we can with monetary policy. So the options are try to use government spending to get people back to work or to prevent them from losing their jobs, or do nothing. A fair chunk of the stimulus is state aid; otherwise, these people will get laid off. That part seems to work pretty immediately. Other aspects may be more or less effective. Some portions are pure political compromise (the AMT patch). But the risk of doing nothing is substantial. And that's where the debate should be.
And any debate should start with the facts--all of them, not just the ones that happen to support what one already believes.
dsimon:
forgive me -- I'll only make brief retort to say that after RR's tax cuts money poured into the Treasury, supply side works. But it cannot control spending. Still as the article points out the growth in spending as % of the economy was greatly restrained. Something we will enver see in one of Zero's budget's I am sure.
BTW: You are patient and thoughtful person. What are you doing here?
I just love watching the transformation of "PeteKent, shill for John McCain" to "PeteKent, shill for some website that lets you buy your stamps on line."
As for the topic at hand, I can only echo what others have said more eloquently than I: "voodoo economics" (a term coined by that raging liberal George H.W. Bush) don't work, have never worked, and we have the evidence to prove it. President Obama is trying something else, and I'd rather support his plan that start applying for food stamps.
@PeteKent:
Care to provide the figures on revenue which "poured into the Treasury" after the Reagan tax cuts? The spending which supply-side economics "cannot control" was entitlement spending. You know, things like Social Security, Medicare, AFDC and the like. Now, Clinton and the Republicans replaced AFDC by TANF in the 1990's, which has reduced welfare expenditures.
So what is dsimon doing here? Refuting the sorry likes of you, that's what.
supply side works. But it cannot control spending.
Did RR veto a single budget? How does he avoid any responsibility for that?
And from what I've read, our present deficits are caused mostly by W's tax cuts--something that wouldn't be the case if tax cuts led to vastly increased revenues.
The Laffer Curve is obvious at its extremes: both 0% taxation and 100% taxation lead to zero revenues. But it's an assumption to say that we're at a point on the curve where reducing taxes will increase revenues. No one really knows what happens between those two endpoints. And again, I think the evidence shows that the tax rates of the Clinton years are no hindrance to a vibrant economy.
Still as the article points out the growth in spending as % of the economy was greatly restrained.
But why is that the relevant statistic? Fine, economic growth outpaced spending growth. But that can be the case whether or not there are tax cuts. As stated before, Clinton raised taxes coming out of a recession, and the economy kept growing and expenditures as a percentage of GDP declined. So I don't think it shows anything about supply side economics. The fact is that the economy grows regardless of whether the tax rates go up or down a few percentage points.
Actually, that's a key point. Supply siders say "every time we reduce taxes, revenues go up." But that doesn't mean it's cause and effect. Revenues usually go up because (1) the economy is usually growing, (2) population is usually rising, meaning there are more people working and paying taxes, and (3) inflation usually bumps everything up by a few percentage points. These factors usually outweigh the few percentage points lost by cutting taxes. The real question should be: would revenues have been larger or smaller had taxes not been cut in the first place?
You are patient and thoughtful person.
Thanks. I try. We all sometimes fail. But I'd hope we'd all do our best. Ranting is usually not a successful tactic to encourage people to think about stuff.
@Taft-
hello- Nice post. Have a great day
In a editorial against the stimulus bill by Karl Rove that was published in the Wall Street Journal today, he claims that the stimulus bill would be "the largest peacetime spending increase in American history".
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123440382396475547.html
What I find more funny than Rove's idiotic hyperbole*, is that all through the Bush administration he kept telling us that we were at war, and now that Obama is elected suddenly we're at peace. What changed? When did the war suddenly end? I don't recall a peace treaty.
*Footnote: Making historical comparisons without using inflation adjusted values demonstrates that Rove doesn't even understand basic economic issues. This kinda undermines his claim that Republicans have valuable "ideas" to contribute to the stimulus debate.
Final comment from me.
I am not remotely "far left" by any sane standard.
I certainly "read Nate's comment", and it is a rare example of a comment by Nate that I disagree with.
The "conflict bias" of the media is expressed now, because there is a Democratic administration, even though in fact, the Democratic administration is behaving in a very restrained and centrist manner.
From 2000 through 2008, I did not see a "conflict bias", I saw a clear bias in favor of Republicans, even though at that time the Republicans were behaving in a very controversial and easy to "conflict with" manner.
Did they coincidentally change from a "shill for the government bias" to a "conflict bias" when the Democrats took power? Maybe.
But Occam's razor suggests a better explanation - it was always a "pro-Republican bias" and it still is.
That explains BOTH an emphasis on "conflict" now AND an emphasis on "patriotic praise of the Commander in Chief" then.
I concede that the media was less attacking of Obama than they were of Gore and Kerry, during the campaign, but they tried to push McCain/Palin, it's just that McCain/Palin made that job very difficult.
PeteKent Idiot:
What say you about this page?
http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html
wv: oxyacka - Lush's response when the Feds busted him for oxycontin?
Post a Comment