2010: Dems still blaming Bush, everyone else is moving on
[Posted by Karl]
That’s the message buried in a polling memo from the New Democrats at Third Way:
Less than two years after leaving office, only 25% of Americans believe that if Republicans return to power in Congress their economic agenda will mean a return to former President Bush’s economic policies. 65% say that a Republican Congress will promote a “new economic agenda that is different from George W. Bush’s policies.” Even Democrats and liberals are unconvinced that a Republican Congress means a return to Bushanomics. And moderates and Independents, the key swing blocs in all major policy debates, have completely divorced congressional Republicans from the economic philosophy and failed policies of President Bush.
WaPo blogger Greg Sargent reports that “[t]his has some Dems worrying that the central Dem message has yet to sink in with voters,” but noting that the poll shows “if the public is persuaded that voting Republican would be a return to Bush policies, it has a dramatic impact on voter attitudes.”
Actually, the word needing emphasis in that sentence is if — the biggest two-letter word in the English language. The Third Way poll is broadly consistent with the new Rasmussen poll showing that voters now see Obama as equally to blame as Bush for the country’s current economic problems. Can key voter blocs be persuaded otherwise?
The Dem theory seems to be to try to re-tie the GOP to Bush by staging fights over the Bush tax cuts, and so on. But what if voter intent is not driven by their perception of Congressional GOP candidates? What if the reverse is true?
For example, in 1994, the Congressional GOP knew they were likely to win a majority before the end of July. Although we cannot know whether 2010 will have a 1994-sized wave, we can hypothesize that many indie/moderate voters have already looked at the current state of the economy — and the current state of the war in Afghanistan — and decided they don’t like what they see very much. And that the Democrats’ passage of unpopular legislation may have them yearning for gridlock, which does not even require a high opinion of the GOP. Perhaps they form an anti-Democrat voting intent from the basics, and their opinion about the Congressional GOP follows, rather than the other way around.
The Democrats’ message of “We May Be Incompetent, But They’re Crazy” may work in provable cases (and perhaps depress indie/moderate turnout) but not in general. Some voters seeking a divided government won’t care if the GOP candidate is “crazy,” “extreme,” etc. Others want to believe things can get better and will convince themselves the GOP is a suitable alternative. That’s Hope and Change returning to bite the Donks in the rear.
–Karl
In my little world of fantasy, the Dems long ago sank below 200 as what they can expect to keep in the new House, as the “Summer of Recovery” slowly submerges, their numbers could be the worst in Post-WW2 history, and now might be lucky to keep 190 seats. Following the 1946 mid-terms, the Dems fell to their lowest number in modern history: 188 seats. Will they now match that low-point?
AD - RtR/OS! (37aceb) — 8/3/2010 @ 11:56 amNobody seems to be making the connection with the Democrat takeover of Congress in 2006 and the collapse of the financial sector. Way back, in 2008, I posted that the next election will be a you-tube election. Obama got caught a few times saying different things to different groups but he was riding a wave then. Next time for him, and this fall for his party, it may not be so easy to finesse the things they say on camera.
Mike K (0ef8c3) — 8/3/2010 @ 12:04 pmAD,
Gallup’s generic ballot model suggests the Dems could be in that historic category, based on their current 43% showing. However, the margin of error in polling data still suggests a wide range of outcomes. Moreover, the data set for modern midterms is so small that we shouldn’t jump to big conclusions. The closest example in terms of unemployment might be 1982, but the GOP losses were held to only 27 seats (roughly the historical avg). If the Dems get shelled this year, the working hypothesis would be that ’82 was mild, while ’94 and ’10 were severe, because voters liked Reagan’s policies, but noth the Dems’.
Karl (f07e38) — 8/3/2010 @ 12:54 pmWe need to find a theme that reinforces the Democrats failure to carry out their basic responsibilities of governing e.g., the budget.
SPQR (159590) — 8/3/2010 @ 12:59 pmthe more they invoke Bush’s bad economic policies the more they make people think of bad economic policies, which is not helpful to bumblef
happyfeet (71f55e) — 8/3/2010 @ 1:13 pmfeets!
—
SPQR,
The Dems’ failure to carry out their basic responsibilities of governing is a theme, which can be illustrated in part by their failure to pass a budget. It might be stronger to note that Dems (a) spent like drunken sailors; (b) plan to spend like a drunken Navy; and (c) won’t pass a budget to let you know who’s getting the bill.
Karl (f07e38) — 8/3/2010 @ 1:34 pmComment by Karl — 8/3/2010 @ 12:54 pm
1982 was a campaign year I am quite familiar with, having been involved in a major (winning) Senatorial race:
AD - RtR/OS! (37aceb) — 8/3/2010 @ 2:10 pmIn the Summer of ’82, the DOW bottomed at 777 on August 12, 1982, closing off a Bear Market that had run for 15-years. From there, helped not inconsiderably by the Reagan tax-cuts in-place and in the pipeline, it started a Bull Market expansion that ran to the .com bust in 2000.
With the market going up every day, un-employment dropping in response as business planned for future growth, the losses at the mid-term were kept to reasonable numbers for a first-term mid-term. Ask Jerry Brown, who thought he was going to be a United States Senator.
65% say that a Republican Congress will promote a “new economic agenda that is different from George W. Bush’s policies.”
Since at the moment, the big economic issue for Republicans seems to be to make sure that Bush’s tax cuts do not expire as scheduled, the poll numbers suggest a lack of awareness of reality among a large number of voters. Honest conservative blogging ought to focus on getting voters to understand that, yes, voting Republican means more of the policies that Bush gave us for eight years.
Jestak (94be99) — 8/3/2010 @ 2:17 pmJestak, are you a liberal or a moby? I can’t tell which from your brief, dishonest comment.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 8/3/2010 @ 2:21 pmActually, this is pretty funny:
Oh, I think ALL the poll numbers show quite a bit of awareness of reality among voters—about how poorly the Democrats are running things. And the trolls and mobies and progressives know it, which is why they write stuff like Jestak here.
BHO has…rock..solid…support (remember that one?).
Now, if only the Republicans don’t screw it up worse than the Democrats have….
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 8/3/2010 @ 2:27 pmAnd now, this:
“The New York Times Issues a Correction” – Instapundit
I guess Breitbart’s $100-Grand is safe.
AD - RtR/OS! (37aceb) — 8/3/2010 @ 2:33 pmThe problem with the progressive is that he doesn’t understand people. To him it’s obvious that raising taxes must raise government income. That it leads instead to a loss of income doesn’t get through his defenses and denials.
When you take money from people they don’t have it to spend, invest, or save. You take enough money then people stop spending, saving, or investing because they don’t have the money to do it with. And government is an incredibly inefficient agent of wealth distribution, for much of what it spends on that distribution is spent on bureaucracy, a bureaucracy established to make sure that wealth redistribution is handled fairly.
But explain it to the progressive and his fanatic faith in the goodness of government.
Alan Kellogg (9fb1c3) — 8/3/2010 @ 2:34 pmDon’t worry, AD. One or two of our regulars will shortly show up to describe his or her dreams of Breitbart’s indictment and frogmarch to prison.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 8/3/2010 @ 2:40 pmSince at the moment, the big economic issue for Republicans seems to be to make sure that Bush’s tax cuts do not expire as scheduled ..
You should read the news. The Dems don’t want them to expire either.
Subotai (1e50bb) — 8/3/2010 @ 2:42 pmAD,
I don’t dispute the history on ’82, but there is a question of how quickly the electorate actually perceived the recovery coming (though the market run likely helped at the margin, where interesting things tend to happen). It could also have been that people were just more willing to “stay the course” as Reagan urged, based on the substance of the policy in general — whereas voters may be less inclined to stay the course on Obama’s unpopular policies. I mention it because Dems tend to have a Narrative about Reagan’s popularity being the key, when in fact there was polling showing RR’s policies were more popular than the man himself during this period.
Karl (f07e38) — 8/3/2010 @ 2:45 pmHere’s a graph showing how high both unemployment and disapproval of Reagan were in 1982.
Karl (f07e38) — 8/3/2010 @ 2:49 pmNotice how all of the trollish stalkerish thingies are trotting out variations of “tax cuts for the rich”, “Bush responsible for Barcky deficits”, “tax cuts are not paid for”. The Leftists are very invested in these memes.
JD (636015) — 8/3/2010 @ 2:54 pmThe only reason the Bush tax cuts had a sunset provision was due to the Democrats – they were approved through reconciliation. The only reason the deficit is so big is Obama and the Democrats are spending so much more than Bush. How are Bush and Repiblicans to blame for the Democrat spending? Why should people be looking forward to the largest tax increase in the country’s history courtesy of the Democrat Party?
Typical liberal pretzel logic. They assume other people are as stupid as they are.
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/3/2010 @ 3:14 pmJD – We need the bumperstickers –
IT’S THE SPENDING, STUPID!
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/3/2010 @ 3:17 pmJD, indeed. That is the limit of their talking points.
And the basic refutation remains, that when those evil Bush tax cuts expire, the Democrats’ deficit will be one and a half trillion dollars regardless. So it can’t be the “fault” of the tax cuts that they spend too much.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/3/2010 @ 3:19 pmI look forward to crissyhooten dropping by to explain to us how Barcky’s deficits will still be in excess of $1,500,000,000,000 next year, if the tax cuts expire. And how that money is better spent stimulating the economy by paying unemployment benefits, for the newly unemployed.
JD (636015) — 8/3/2010 @ 3:22 pmJD, but he won’t explain. Just as Hooten never quoted from Breitbart’s original posting on the Sherrod video.
Never.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/3/2010 @ 3:23 pmI keep reminding people that it was Dole, the Republican majority leader, who blocked the Reagan tax cuts until 1982, leading to the loss of the political initiative that should have come from the economic stimulus. Everybody who was ready to invest, waited until the tax cuts took effect, deepening the 1981-82 recession which had followed the Volker interest rate spike.
Dole cost Reagan and the country as much as if he had been a Democrat. Mitchell played the same role with Bush I by filibustering capital gains tax cuts, which deepened the 1991-92 recession. That cost Bush a second term. At least Mitchell was a Democrat so he had understandable motives, even though he harmed the country.
Mike K (0ef8c3) — 8/3/2010 @ 3:25 pmKarl, in the campaign HQ, phoning people every day to raise money, we could feel the change from the primary days (before June).
AD - RtR/OS! (37aceb) — 8/3/2010 @ 3:25 pmYou would also see it in the $’s coming in to pay for the ads, in getting donors to step up and max-out. The early post-primary polls showed us trailing, and as Labor Day passed, it started to turn around, just as the DOW was advancing away from 777.
People reacted to the expectation that things were finally going to get better, and they opened their wallets, we could run more media, and the numbers turned around.
Of course, the big turn-out in November to defeat the Prop-15 Handgun Ban was helpful too.
True, SPQR. He just asserts his asspulls and idiocy as received wisdom.
JD (636015) — 8/3/2010 @ 3:28 pmJD, I think this is what annoys me the most about the Democratic shills/trolls. Not that they regurgitate talking points, but that they insist upon superior knowledge when in fact, they really don’t know the basic facts of the topics they insist they are experts upon.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/3/2010 @ 3:31 pmThe wild card in the November elections will be the publication of Bush’s book in October. That month wasn’t picked at random, so I expect some real eye-popper revelations that hopefully will make liberals choke. And, of course, help conservatives win their races.
Luthien (2f6891) — 8/3/2010 @ 3:32 pmpaying unemployment benefits, for the newly unemployed
For the newly unemployed?
What about the legions of unemployed who have been out of work for 6-months, 12-months, 18-months, or more?
The ones who have already used up those 98-weeks’ of benefits?
Barry has presided over the worst employment picture since FDR.
AD - RtR/OS! (37aceb) — 8/3/2010 @ 3:32 pmIt’s his, he owns it!
AD – I meant those that will become unemployed when Barcky saddles the US with a huge tax increase.
JD (636015) — 8/3/2010 @ 3:33 pm\
SPQR – The emote, they do not know.
Obama and the Dems have no choice but to let the Bush tax cuts expire on the rich (no matter how many different ways they define that term). They’ve spent two decades snickering at ‘trickle down’ and ‘Reaganomics’ how can they now say ‘yes, we now understand that raising taxes on the rich will have a ripple effect on the economy after all, and so we renounce all of our previous reouncements of conservative econmics’.
In a similar vein but for a shorter duration, for 7 years the Dems have been saying that the Bush tax cuts are the route of all evil. Now they want to embrace the Bush tax cuts?
East Bay Jay (2fd7f7) — 8/3/2010 @ 3:38 pmAD, Obama certainly made specific claims about what unemployment would be should the Democrats’ pork barrel of nearly one trillion not be adopted.
And the result was actually worse than the administration’s predictions w/o the pork legislation. Why should we not hold them to their predictions?
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/3/2010 @ 3:38 pmThe only reason the Bush tax cuts had a sunset provision was due to the Democrats
No, they had a sunset provision so that the tax cuts could avoid triggering the Byrd Rule, which otherwise would have allowed senators to block the cuts on the (valid) grounds that they would significantly increase the deficit beyond a ten-year term. Essentially, it was the political equivalent of “Enron accounting.”
The only reason the deficit is so big is Obama and the Democrats are spending so much more than Bush.
No, the reason the deficit is so big is that, because of the Bush tax cuts, and Bush’s $3 trillion Iraq war, we ran large structural deficits for almost all of Bush’s term, instead of maintaining a balanced budget or surplus, as we should have done during a lengthy economic expansion (and as we did do during the Clinton years).
Jestak (94be99) — 8/3/2010 @ 3:44 pm“The wild card in the November elections will be the publication of Bush’s book in October”
I wonder if that’s locked in stone i.e. the book is finished and they’re printing copies now. I thought Drudge’s headline a few weeks back was designed to get Bush to move the publication date. Obviously the publisher wants to get it out during the ‘high’ political season and Bush probably didn’t care. Drudge reminded him, publicly, that the publisher is going to leak and the odds that the leaks will be favorable to Republicans is highly unlikely. In fact, I think you can predict the excerpts by looking at Obama’s multitude of faults. Where O is f’ing it up they’re going to look for something in the book that applies the same fault to Bush. For one, I’d guess a Katrina-Gulf Oil Spill strategic leak designed to make Obama look better in comparison is a sure thing.
East Bay Jay (2fd7f7) — 8/3/2010 @ 3:45 pmJester is another one of the trollish fools. And a liar liar liar.
JD (636015) — 8/3/2010 @ 3:50 pmIn case that was not clear, I was pointing out that “Jestake” is a sophist and a liar, just like crissyhooten and the rest of their ilk.
JD (636015) — 8/3/2010 @ 3:55 pmHello again, Yes, its me back again!
What a country… you guys promote the idea that, well reluctantly, we admit Bush spent eight years screwing up things with two unfunded wars and unwise business deregulation BUT FORGET THAT!! just blame Barry Hussein because that American hater cannot fix the economy and bring two wars to an end in a year or two, in spite of Republican efforts to block him on every front and spread fear and misinformation, therefore we should all return to the same group that got us into this in the first place!
Makes perfect sense to a party that is hell bent on returning to power and is willing to sink the ship of state if need be to do that.
Yes, you might celebrate that your campaign of hate and disinformation ( death panels) succeeds and maybe Sarah Palin might be the next President..and maybe it will be the Democrats turn to play the same game you folks have. Maybe they will have learned the lesson and the game from you.
I would like to know specifically in what ways the Republicans would change their former ways.. and I especially would like to hear from those that so passionately defended Bush and those policies at the time,
I will be watching and waiting but I suspect its the poison just with a different label…and with a white face..
VietnamEraVet (35c6c1) — 8/3/2010 @ 3:57 pmTake your meds you lying asshate.
JD (636015) — 8/3/2010 @ 4:00 pm“No, they had a sunset provision so that the tax cuts could avoid triggering the Byrd Rule”
Jestak – U pointed out they were approved through reconciliation, where the Byrd rule comes into play. I do not believe the Democrats would agree to them on a regular vote, forcing the reconciliation procedure with the sunset clause. Feel free to look it up.
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/3/2010 @ 4:07 pm“No, the reason the deficit is so big is that, because of the Bush tax cuts, and Bush’s $3 trillion Iraq war”
Jestak – Simple exercise. What was government spending under Bush in fiscal 2007 and what was the deficit? What was government spending under Obama last year and what was the deficit.
Go!
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/3/2010 @ 4:10 pmVEV – Ho Hum, SOS different day.
unwise business deregulation – What did Bush deregulate?
in spite of Republican efforts to block him on every front – What could Republicans actually block with Dem majorities Obama had?
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/3/2010 @ 4:13 pmVEV – Facts backing up your talking points would be a very nice change, but too much to expect.
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/3/2010 @ 4:16 pmSounds like VEV was slopping out the stables during the late 60s and early 70s – and doesn’t realise that there is a difference between a stablehand and a veterinarian …
Of course, VietnamEraStab just doesn’t have the same cachet as VietnamEraVet, now, does it ?
Alasdair (0d8884) — 8/3/2010 @ 4:45 pmVEV, utter nonsense. AFTER unwinding all that BS “evil” from Bush, the Democrats’ still have a deficit of one and a half trillion dollars – an order of magnitude worse than Bush’s deficits.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/3/2010 @ 4:49 pmTrying to explain economics to a Leftist is like trying to explain a diminishing-fifth to someone who can’t hear.
AD - RtR/OS! (37aceb) — 8/3/2010 @ 4:59 pmActually…
This was kind of sad. The person who said that is clearly in need of medication, or slept throughout GWB’s terms.
Because the Democrats worked so hard to be collegial and nonpartisan, and never, ever said things to undermine the President for political reasons.
As I say, the fellow needs help. But that isn’t news, considered his many prior posts (or should I say rants).
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 8/3/2010 @ 5:02 pmOn VEVian…
AD - RtR/OS! (37aceb) — 8/3/2010 @ 5:02 pmYou don’t mean to tell me that you actually read his drug-induced rants, do you?
Trying to explain economics to crissyhooten is like trying to teach a steaming cowpie how to speak Mandarin.
JD (636015) — 8/3/2010 @ 5:03 pmI feel sorry for VEV, who clearly has some issues. Mr. Hooten is just a troll. But at least both of them can spell, unlike the other Major Troll around here.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 8/3/2010 @ 5:04 pmNo, the reason the deficit is so big is that, because of the Bush tax cuts, and Bush’s $3 trillion Iraq war, we ran large structural deficits for almost all of Bush’s term, instead of maintaining a balanced budget or surplus, as we should have done during a lengthy economic expansion (and as we did do during the Clinton years).
Structural deficits during the Bush years–$600 billion (at their largest)
Structural deficits during the Obama years–$1.5 trillion.
And if you check the Public Debt Outstanding figures at the Treasury’s own web site, you’ll see that Clinton never ran a surplus, and that the national debt continued to increase during his Presidency–because there’s a big difference between projected surpluses and actual money spent.
The contention that the Bush tax cuts caused the deficit is fundamentally ignorant at best. Government spending beyond its means has always been the cause of deficits and always will be.
And as for running balanced budgets, Obama and the Dems abandoned that whole “paygo” facade as soon as the ink was dry on the bill–the only things being paid for with government revenues right now are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Everything else is bonded debt, including the entire Department of Defense (so you can drop your little fantasy about balancing the budget by eliminating defense spending entirely).
Here’s some reality that I know will be hard for you to swallow:
http://market-ticker.org/archives/2422-Social-Security-Heres-The-Problem.html
The Dems couldn’t even be bothered to craft a budget this year, and Orzag’s gift to Obama (before he jumped ship) was to manage to leave the $6.5 trillion in Fannie/Freddie liabilities off the public debt ledger.
So as much as you probably hate the banks, their purchasing of Treasuries thanks to Bernanke’s ZIRP policies is the only reason Obama can keep kicking this can down the road–be sure to send the guys at Goldman Sachs, Citibank, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan, and Bank of America your thanks.
Another Chris (40ac96) — 8/3/2010 @ 5:06 pmAD (24),
That’s interesting stuff. That sort of thing would be consistent with my point in the original post about (some) people’s opinions forming well before Labor Day, too.
Karl (12dcea) — 8/3/2010 @ 5:11 pmIf I were the Democrats, I don’t think I’d be using the word “crazy” in my ads, especially relating to economics.
To too many people adding a huge entitlement on top of a $1.5 trillion deficit is the epitome of crazy. Not something to remind folks of.
Kevin Murphy (73dcc9) — 8/3/2010 @ 5:11 pmAnother Chris – How dare you?! I am sure that they can show where the tax cuts caused decreased revenues, no? Projected vs actual? You must be kidding.
JD (636015) — 8/3/2010 @ 5:12 pmComment by Another Chris — 8/3/2010 @ 5:06 pm
Well said, but irrelevant to our Soros Kiddie Korps.
AD - RtR/OS! (37aceb) — 8/3/2010 @ 5:16 pmAnother Chris, that was a good fisking.
The trolls? They put the “fun” in “fundamentally ignorant.”
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 8/3/2010 @ 5:17 pmTax receipts Clinton Years and GWB Years in billions of dollars (from liberal Urban Institute & Brookings Institute)
1993 1,154.3
1994 1,258.6
1995 1,351.8
1996 1,453.1
1997 1,579.2
1998 1,721.7
1999 1,827.5
2000 2,025.2
2001 1.991.1
ColonelHaiku (63753b) — 8/3/2010 @ 5:23 pm2002 1,853.1
2003 1,782.3
2004 1,880.1
2005 2,153.6
2006 2,406.9
2007 2,568.0
2008 2,524.0
so Haystack is wrong
ColonelHaiku (63753b) — 8/3/2010 @ 5:27 pmcutting taxes spurs the great
economic growth
With the exception of 2007 to 2008, post Pelosi House and Reid Senate, tax revenues rose every year after the enactment of the evil tax cuts? Surely you jest.
JD (636015) — 8/3/2010 @ 5:31 pmfigures also there for
ColonelHaiku (63753b) — 8/3/2010 @ 5:36 pmlook at same data constant
’05 dollars same… story
Colonel call Hooten
ColonelHaiku (63753b) — 8/3/2010 @ 5:37 pmout Hooten you liberal
weenie come get it
Jestak writes: “No, the reason the deficit is so big is that, because of the Bush tax cuts, and Bush’s $3 trillion Iraq war, we ran large structural deficits for almost all of Bush’s term, instead of maintaining a balanced budget or surplus, as we should have done during a lengthy economic expansion (and as we did do during the Clinton years).”
First of all, the Democrats supported the Iraq and Afghanistan operations until they decided to dishonestly retreat from those wars.
The rest is completely refuted by the fact that after the tax cuts expire, the Democrats’ budgets show one trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.
The result is that the Democrats’ current irresponsibility is an order of magnitude greater than “Bush’s”.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/3/2010 @ 5:43 pmhttp://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/index.cfm
look at receipts and outlays… definitely see when Republicans in Congress “influenced” Clinton.
ColonelHaiku (63753b) — 8/3/2010 @ 5:45 pmgo to: Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary
ColonelHaiku (63753b) — 8/3/2010 @ 5:47 pmOr look at when the Congressional Dems, Pelosi and Reid, took over.
JD (636015) — 8/3/2010 @ 5:48 pmbingo
ColonelHaiku (63753b) — 8/3/2010 @ 5:48 pmYes, the first Pelosi/Reid budget year was FY-2008. They punted on FY-2009, using a series of continuing resolutions for non-Defense discretionary spending until they could pass their wishlist in Jan-09 and have Barry sign it – all the things that GWB had threatened to veto.
Plus note: the decrease in revenues in FY-2001 were in part due to the .com bust when the markets all tanked following the Microsoft anti-trust filing; and the FY-2002 decrease can be put down to the economic damage due to 9/11, which was considerable.
It was only the tax-cuts that allowed the economy to stagger forward and the energize itself until, with the 110th Congress, business started to contract again, fearing an unknown future.
AD - RtR/OS! (37aceb) — 8/3/2010 @ 6:12 pmNow, the 111th Congress has given us a future of immeasurable deficits as far as the Hubble telescope can see.
Is it any wonder that people are “going Galt”?
VietnamEraVet
ColonelHaiku (63753b) — 8/3/2010 @ 6:20 pmsuffers debilitation
from AgentOrange
I will be watching and waiting but I suspect its the poison just with a different label…and with a white face.
that the coke talkin
ColonelHaiku (63753b) — 8/3/2010 @ 6:24 pmvietnameravet or watch
MSLSD?
At least 10-15 of the 1982 house losses were due to redistricting. The post 1980 redistricting was more significant than any since because 1) It was before the courts began requiring the Dems to maximize minority districts, which limited their gerrymander options 2) The Dems still dominated Southern state legislatures/
The Awful Truth (dcc096) — 8/3/2010 @ 9:42 pmTax Revenue…inconvenient facts…
Since 1978, income tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners rose to 3.3% of GDP in 2007 from 1.5% of GDP in 1978; while receipts from the bottom 95% of earners fell from 5.4% of GDP in 1978 to 3.2% of GDP in 2007.
(Source: Arthur Laffer, WSJ, Monday 8/2/10, “The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22”)
Those “tax cuts for the rich” sure burdened the lowest income earners in strange ways, forcing them to pay a lower amount of taxes to the government under penalty of law.
AD - RtR/OS! (37aceb) — 8/3/2010 @ 10:05 pmdaleyrocks, here are some numbers for you.
Gross Federal Debt, 2001 fiscal year: just under $5.8 trillion
Gross Federal Debt, 2008 fiscal year: just under $10 trillion.
That means that even if we credit the entire fiscal 2009 deficit to Obama’s policies (and we should not as the fiscal 2009 budget was approved in 2008 and proposed by Bush), we have to note that President Bush ran deficits of about $4.2 trillion in his first seven years–roughly equal to 30% of GDP. This can be attributed to 1) tax cuts, and 2) Iraq.
With a prudent fiscal policy and no war in Iraq, we would have entered the recession with a national debt equal to less than 50% of GDP, rather than the 70% figure that President Obama confronted last year. We would be in a much sounder position to run the cyclical deficits that the recession made necessary, deficits which a President McCain would have inevitably had to run as well.
Jestak (94be99) — 8/3/2010 @ 10:52 pmSigh. Here we go again.
Eric Blair (aec019) — 8/3/2010 @ 10:58 pmNow Jester is arguing against something that is not in dispute. Republicans spent too much money. That in no way, none, zero, zip, nada, zifr makes Barcky’s irresponsible coked up Armada spending acceptable.
Barcky is trying to blow through this figure in way less time. Bush’s deficits are rounding errors in Barckyland.
“This can be attributed to … ” spending. Fixed that for you, as it does not fit with your narrative.
In short, you are a liar and an idiot. On your good days.
Budgets passed by Pelosi and Reid. You are an imbecile.
JD (636015) — 8/3/2010 @ 11:04 pmToo bad Jester didn’t follow through on his stats:
2001…debt as % of GDP: 57.4%;
2008…debt as % of GDP: 70.2%
2010…debt as % of GDP: 101% (est @ $14.5T)
The Bushies took 8-years to increase the debt level by 13% of GDP, yet Barry has increased it by 30% of GDP in just 2-years.
Way to Go, Barry!
AD - RtR/OS! (37aceb) — 8/3/2010 @ 11:18 pmAD – In Jester’s world, this is just an extension of Bush’s fault.
JD (636015) — 8/3/2010 @ 11:22 pmJestak – See comment 55.
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/3/2010 @ 11:41 pmJestak – When Obama increase spending by a trillion over the prior year, a commensurate increase in the deficit is not due to Bush tax cuts. Work on the math. You’ll figure it out eventually.
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/3/2010 @ 11:44 pmdaleyrocks – It is not discussing things with you, it is spitting out talking points from its masters.
JD (636015) — 8/3/2010 @ 11:47 pmI am such a great troll, I took over this whole thread without even posting. LOL! Yeah, I am such a huge troll I DIDN’T EVEN POST HERE. Yet all I see is hooten hooten hooten hooten. [snark]
Chris Hooten (c3ea1b) — 8/4/2010 @ 4:01 pmHooten pay attention
ColonelHaiku (63753b) — 8/4/2010 @ 4:05 pmtax cuts always increase the
revenue and jobs
dont go away mad
ColonelHaiku (63753b) — 8/4/2010 @ 4:06 pmhooten read link and then leave
educated man
Ignorant butt-heads
think they understand, but don’t
wrong about tax cuts
GOP idea
a five times larger tax cut
mostly for wealthy
Five times larger cut
to taxes than Bush’s cuts
deficit explodes
A dumb idea
Chris Hooten (c3ea1b) — 8/4/2010 @ 4:18 pmtouted by many people
who are misinformed
ALL taxpayers pay
less tax under Bush hooten
pay more under Dems
you insane in the
membrane hooten facts always
confuse you wake up!
all hooten posts cry
ColonelHaiku (1baff7) — 8/4/2010 @ 4:47 pmout: whiskey tango foxtrot!
no clue have no clue
hooten maroon not
ColonelHaiku (1baff7) — 8/4/2010 @ 4:48 pmunderstand simple concept
need to cut spending!
Jestak – The gross debt at the end of 2009 was $12.3 trillion, up $2.3 trillion in one year and is projected to be around $14.5 trillion at the end of this year. Of course focusing on the gross debt number, which includes intra-governmental obligations such as the social security trust fund does make the numbers look very large.
Looking at net debt, or the debt held by the public shows a much different picture for Bush, but the came dramatic acceleration under Obama.
2000 $3,410
2008 $5,802
2009 $7,802
2010 $9,882
With Bush tax cuts present in both Administrations, the difference is clearly the spending. Bring a better game next time.
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/4/2010 @ 5:04 pmEffing lying twatwaffles is what they are.
JD (c13155) — 8/4/2010 @ 5:15 pmWhat exactly is GOP policy going to be if they control Congress? All I’ve heard from GOP leadership is a bunch of vague platitudes.
JEA (7bf7e0) — 8/4/2010 @ 6:12 pmJEA,
1. The ’94 GOP didn’t announce the Contract until much later in the cycle;
2. A lot of voters won’t care, because they assume Obama will veto the GOP agenda, while they refuse to pass his. And when folks on the Left come to grips with that, they’ll be in a better position to figure out a campaign strategy.
Karl (12dcea) — 8/4/2010 @ 6:17 pmJEA doesn’t really care, Karl, though he claims to be non-partisan. His question was just a variation of the party of no, Buuuuusssssshhhh policies, cannot drive memes.
JD (c13155) — 8/4/2010 @ 6:21 pmAre you familiar with Rep. Ryan’s Roadmap, JEA?
JD (c13155) — 8/4/2010 @ 6:22 pmJD,
I know he doesn’t care, but I didn’t wan’t anyone else to mistakenly believe he made anything remotely near a point.
Karl (12dcea) — 8/4/2010 @ 6:51 pmJEA come from
ColonelHaiku (1baff7) — 8/4/2010 @ 7:12 pmEIEIO zip code
country-headed boy
Jestak, you are not even a bit embarrassed at how using your own “methodology” of attempting to “blame Bush”, it backfires onto yourself?
Hilarious. That’s Hooten-quality moron.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/4/2010 @ 7:30 pmThis is like a one-stop misinformation warehouse. Your copious amounts of mistaken ideas about tax cuts is at the very least alarming, and probably more terrifying. Look at what the Bush tax cuts have left us with (don’t give me this baloney about how that is not true. Get some damn facts.) Imagine five frickin’ times that mistake FIVE TIMES. trillions of dollars. The idea that receipts are higher because of tax cuts is mistaken. It was not because taxes were cut. How stupid do you have to be to believe something so illogical. For goodness sakes, get some real information besides these poor, old, tired, and incorrect right-wing talking points. There are no real economists that believe that!
Chris Hooten (c3ea1b) — 8/5/2010 @ 1:08 amThis is like a one-stop misinformation warehouse. Your copious amounts of mistaken ideas about tax cuts is at the very least alarming, and probably more terrifying.
Sounds like the justification of thief to me.
Look at what the Bush tax cuts have left us with (don’t give me this baloney about how that is not true. Get some damn facts.)
The Dems in Congress could have repealed the tax cuts the minute Obama came into office. They didn’t do so.
Apparently even the Dems realize that raising taxes in the teeth of a depression is economic suicide. Too bad you don’t seem to understand the same thing.
The idea that receipts are higher because of tax cuts is mistaken. It was not because taxes were cut.
Well, actually it is part of the reason–capital gains taxes from the stock market run-up to 14K and the housing bubble contributed the bulwark of those receipts. The increase in revenues from these capital gains taxes more than made up for whatever tax cuts were implemented, as the receipts from 2005-2008 quoted above attest. The tax cuts provided more incentive to place money into these markets than had previously been the case.
The government isn’t seeing their receipts crater because taxes are too low–they aren’t getting receipts because unemployment is so high. Employment was, and still is, the driver behind government revenues far more than the Bush tax cuts. This is why the Clinton deficits were relatively small and why the deficits during the Bush years were dropping after 2004 until TARP passed.
It’s all about jobs, not the slightly lower tax rate. A difference of 3-4 percentage points is irrelevant in the face of massive government spending programs, and if people aren’t working, those deficits are going to skyrocket.
That’s why the stimulus has been such a miserable failure–it presumed that this depression was liquidity-based rather than debt-based, and all that was needed was massive infusions of funny money to stabilize things.
Well, the economy has been stabilized–we’ve had an average of 450K initial unemployment filings for about eight months now. In a healthy economy, those numbers are around 300K (even during the dot.com bubble they never dropped below this). And its only going to get worse as the eligible workforce continues to grow. Check out Figure 4 from this article on Zerohedge:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/us-economy-will-return-december-2007-employment-levels-2021
Of course, assuming that perpetual tax increases automatically contribute to stable, exponentially greater revenues is mistaken as well. Look how much consumption dropped when gas went up to $4-5 a gallon–if the government added on taxes to increase the price of gas to this amount, they might get a quick boost of revenue, but then would be faced with diminishing returns as people found other ways to get around.
Another Chris (2d8013) — 8/5/2010 @ 8:15 amChris Hooten, you make wild claims that you can’t back up and accuse us of being the source of misinformation.
The simple fact remains that in FY 2011, the Bush era tax cuts will be gone. Completely gone. And yet, we’ll see record breaking deficits from FY 2011 as far as the Obama administration has projected.
You can’t refute that because it is a simple and obvious fact. So you label others stupid and illogical when you keep ignoring simple facts.
You remain dishonest and without credibility.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/5/2010 @ 8:22 amAll I’ve heard from GOP leadership is a bunch of vague platitudes.
Rule #1 in all political strategies – don’t interrupt your opponent while he’s in the process of destroying himself.
Dmac (d61c0d) — 8/5/2010 @ 8:26 am