Doing Fine?
An incident that happened on Friday displays the nature of America’s current political climate.
In a major economic policy statement as part of a press conference (watch the statement here; go ahead, I’ll wait), President Obama chided Congressional Republicans for declining to move forward on job creation. Republicans in the House and Senate, and Mitt Romney on the campaign trail, responded by misrepresenting the President’s words (that is, by lying about what he said), and so refused to address the underlying issues.
The statement is just over seven minutes long. The President spent the first half discussing Europe’s economic situation, and Greece’s possible exit from the Eurozone. He touched on how this might affect America, and on how Europeans are starting to realize that it’s hard to climb out of an economic slump if a nation’s economy isn’t growing.
The President then went on to describe how America is doing. After nearly two years of bleeding jobs,we’ve now had twenty-seven consecutive months of private-sector job growth. State and local governments, however, have defunded over 450,000 pubic sector jobs. The President pushed for federal assistance to rehire police and fire fighters and teachers, to engage in infrastructure repair, to assist homeowners having trouble with their mortgages, and to give small businesses a tax break for hiring more workers.
He went on to point out that, although we’ve created 4.3 million jobs in the last twenty-seven months, the recovery is not moving fast enough. The President proposed the American Jobs Act last fall, but Republicans blocked most of it. We need more action, we need more jobs, and we need them now.
It was a call and a challenge, an acknowledgement of how far we’ve come, and how far we have yet to go. It also was an indictment of Republican obstructionism, underlining the Republican commitment to doing nothing in the face of the ongoing recovery efforts.
In answer to a reporter’s question, President Obama said,
The truth of the matter is that, as I said, we created 4.3 million jobs over the last 27 months, over 800,000 just this year alone.
The private sector is doing fine. Where we’re seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government. Oftentimes cuts initiated by, you know, Governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government and who don’t have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in.
And so, you know, if Republicans want to be helpful, if they really want to move forward and put people back to work, what they should be thinking about is how do we help state and local governments and how do we help the construction industry? Because the recipes that they’re promoting are basically the kinds of policies that would add weakness to the — to the economy, would result in further layoffs, would not provide relief in the housing market, and would result, I think most economists estimate, in lower growth and fewer jobs, not more.
Amazingly, this answer furnished a soundbite to Republicans, allowing them to change the subject, and to attack the President. Take six words out of context, and the purpose and thrust and meaning of the President’s statement, his press conference, and the issue of the day, is utterly changed:
“The private sector is doing fine.”
Clearly, the President was telling us that the recovery is happening — but not fast enough, not far enough, and we need to do more. But Republican spin is consuming the media, and the pretense is on.
“Where we are seeing weaknesses in our economy, had to do with state and local government, often times cuts initiated by governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal Government, and who don’t have the same flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in,”
The only thing Republicans heard (or so they claim) is, “The private sector is doing fine.”
Romney spokesman Ryan Williams said:
Today, President Obama inexplicably claimed that ‘the private sector is doing fine.’ But the 23 million Americans who are struggling for work are not ‘doing fine.’ Job creators and small businesses are not ‘doing fine.’ The middle class is not ‘doing fine.’ There is no denying that President Obama has been fundamentally hostile to job creators and his policies have prevented our economy from rebounding. America needs a president who understands the economy and knows how to get our country back on track.
Mitt Romney asked, “Is he really that out of touch?” He went on to say the President was “defining what it means to be detached and out of touch with the American people.” He said the comment “is going to go down in history as an extraordinary miscalculation and misunderstanding.” John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and others, have also weighed in, accusing the President of being “out of touch” and of not realizing that people out of work are not “doing just fine.”
The President has had to “clarify”, and has even been said to be “backtracking” on his original remark.
Have you caught what’s going on? We aren’t talking about how Republicans are preventing the creation of new jobs. By taking six words out of context, and by pretending that was all President Obama said, Republicans have effectively changed the subject.
But let’s take them at their word. Let’s pretend Republicans really are so stupid that their attention span lasts six words. They’re complaining that the President, not understanding that there are still people out of work, isn’t doing anything to help them.
For instance, we need a jobs plan. Like the one Republicans refused to enact last fall.
Apparently, professional Republicans are hoping Americans are also stupid enough to have an attention span that lasts six words. They hope we won’t understand that the message the President gave on Friday was the opposite of what Romney and Boehner and Cantor are claiming. They hope we won’t notice that the people who are standing in the way of faster recovery — the people who threw 450,000 public employees out of work — the people who refuse to discuss ways of actually creating more jobs — are the Republicans.
On the one hand, we have a President who is desperately trying to put Americans back to work, and who is pointing out how far we’ve come, and how far we have left to go, and what we have to do to get there. On the other hand is an opposition party addicted to half-truths, outright falsehoods, and doing anything in their power to play political games rather than do anything that would help the nation.
What happened Friday displays the nature of America’s current political climate.
Related articles
President Barack Obama: “Private Sector is Doing Fine”(newstalkcleveland.com)
Shock: House Republicans and Mitt Romney would rather take Obama out of context than create jobs(dailykos.com)
Obama gets grief for saying private sector ‘fine’ — Boston.com(boston.com)
Obama says it’s clear US economy ‘not doing fine’ — Reuters(reuters.com)

This entry was posted by dcpetterson on June 10, 2012 at 3:00 am, and is filed under Uncategorized. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0.You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.
-
#2 written by Mainer 11 months ago
Max even easier the next time a lieing Republican takes this tack with you punch him in the face. May seem a little crude but it has worked with me of late. Sorry all but my give a shit meter on being nice to these bastards got pegged a while back. I’m done turning the other cheek. You want to lie in my face, call me names, espouse bullshit and then get in my face.….well yours shall go home bloody. Propably not a good answer but I have started sleeping better and political discourse around me has improved.….ok truth be known I’m out of the coffee shop for a bit but a small price to pay.
-
Max,
Don’t give your opponent a sound bite to use against you.
If statements can be taken out of context, the only way to keep your opponents from such sound bites is to never speak.
The problem with Obama’s statement is that, taken out of context, it harkens back to the “fundamentals of the economy” comment McCain made late in the 2008 campaign. The difference is that Obama’s statement is mostly accurate, while McCain’s was horribly inaccurate. But they sound similar enough to lead to such a comparison.
-
#4 written by rgbact 11 months ago
Pretty pathetic DC. I’m not big on out of context quotes, but this was more a gaffe than that. Clearly Obama made the age old mistake of telling the truth. Most liberal discourse I”ve seen lately points to if it wasn’t for the lackluster public sector, the jobs picture would look much better. Obama merely stated what most liberals think–that govt jobs need “stimulating”. Why not just admit it? Just admit that if there were just more Democratic governors, alot of govt jobs could be created, matching the gains in the private sector, and meaning the overall jobs picture would be “doing fine”.
Democrats should stop falling back on the “you lie” excuse and just start debating their actual beliefs.
-
#5 written by Max 11 months ago
-
rgbact,
Obama merely stated what most liberals think–that govt jobs need “stimulating”.
Really? Where did he say that? All I got was the observation that we’ve had a lot of government jobs disappear. We know that, without the government unemployment, our U3 would be about 7%. We also know that there hasn’t been a reduction in the number of government employees on this scale in many decades.
Perhaps we could use a reduction in the number of government employees. I don’t know that it would be good or bad. But it should be happening at a slower rate than it’s happening if we don’t want deleterious effects on the economy.
-
#7 written by shortchain 11 months ago
The media, who, as rgbact has told us, are in Obama’s pocket, are absolutely slavering over the opportunity to milk this entirely artificial and meaningless event — but I’m guessing they’ll discover in the next couple of days that it’s boring their watchers, and they’ll drop it.
The Republicans will mindlessly chant this for a while, proving that their not-so-secret hope is that the economy tanks. Which everybody has known for a couple of years now.
And yet another instance of manufactured outrage passes into history.
-
-
Why not just admit it? Just admit that if there were just more Democratic governors, alot of govt jobs could be created, matching the gains in the private sector, and meaning the overall jobs picture would be “doing fine”.
I’ll certainly admit that. Republicans have laid off 450,000 people, out of a mistaken theology of scapegoating, and out of a desire to tank the economy for political purposes. We actually need police and firefighters and teachers, and they should not be private employees.
-
#10 written by shortchain 11 months ago
You know, the experiment of paying government employees at far lower rates of pay and cutting their pension benefits at the same time (or throwing them on 401K plans, which is equivalent, since 401K plans are tied to their salaries — lower salary, lower retirement savings) is perfectly predictable. It will end up dramatically increasing corruption (as was the rule, long ago, before public and private sector unions).
After all, when you perceive yourself as underpaid, the temptation grows to “make a little money on the side”. That’s just human nature. -
is to never speak.
Which begs the rhetorical question … who is gonna stand in for Romney in his (3) presidential debates w/Obama?
Yes Virginia, the days of mittens debating multiple train wrecks ie Santo, Newt, Perry, Cain, Bachmann, etc. are over!
>
Again, also interesting at one time or another said train wrecks er Santo/Newt/Perry/Cain/Bachmann led the national Republican polls. Illustrating how much conservatives loathe Romney.
Oh yea, who am I forgetting lol as Trump also led the Rep polls once upon a time.
-
#12 written by rgbact 11 months ago
So, rgbact, you’re saying that the truth is the private sector IS fine?
As we’ve discussed countless times before– an opinion isn’t false or true. Its just Obama’s point of view. I disagree, but I’m not saying “he lies!”. Its Obama’s “true”/honest opinion that if we can just spark the govt sector more, it could match the private sector’s good performance, and things overall would be good.
-
#13 written by shortchain 11 months ago
rgbact,
I wonder how you know, apparently with certainty, what Obama’s “true/honest opinion” is. Of course, you apparently know what all the liberals in the country really think as well, so maybe it’s just a case of having to focus in on one person.
For my part, I have no idea what Romney thinks, and — to be blunt — I don’t think anybody else does either.
-
-
shortchain, the possibility you raise — that cutting the salaries and benefits of public workers will encourage corruption — is probably a desirable outcome for Republicans. It will help them make the case that gubmint doesn’t work. Of course, it doesn’t work because Republicans break it, but that’s beside the point.
It’s also worth noting that the same people who enjoy breaking gubmint want to be in charge of things in the private sector as well. It’s hard for me to make the argument that these people are more trustworthy without regulators watching them.
-
#16 written by rgbact 11 months ago
rgbact, you do realize that’s not at all what the President said, right?
I’ve now read the entire quote a few times. Its exactly what he said. Lets parse, shall we
1) The private sector is doing fine. He said it, that’s his opinion
2) Where we’re seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government. ie, The problem is really in the govt sector
3) Oftentimes cuts initiated by, you know, Governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government and who don’t have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in. ie, Those damn GOP governors are causing the problem (see Scott Walker). But we’re lucky in DC we don’t need to live by balanced budgets (or any budgets) so I think we can help the GOP guvs out.
4) what they should be thinking about is how do we help state and local governments and how do we help the construction industry? That was Stimulus 1, or stimulate government Part 1. He wants more of that.
He appears to focus most all attention on helping govt. Please tell me.…what is out of context here?? -
rgbact,
You missed the aparts in his opening statement where the President encouraged infrastructure repair (which would not be done by “government workers”), where he suggested assistance for homeowners having trouble with their mortgages, and where he recommended a tax break for small businesses for hiring more workers. None of this is part of the scenario you’re spinning.
You are also ignoring that the part you’re “parsing” was in answer to a specific question by a reporter, so attempts to apply that specific answer to larger issues are sort of the definition of taking something out of context.
-
#18 written by parksie555 11 months ago
Mickey Kaus gets it, as he usually does…
http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/09/why-obamas-gaffe-wasnt-a-phony-story/ -
#19 written by Max 11 months ago
-
#20 written by Max 11 months ago
BTW, rgbact, YOU are the one who said that Obama spoke truth. Look at your statement #4. You did NOT say that Obama’s statements were his opinion. “Truth” you said.
Yes, opinions may be true or false. But YOU SAID he spoke truth.
Thus, YOU must be concurring that the private sector is fine, according to #4.
In #12, you said “I disagree”.
So you are contradicting yourself. -
Romney being as disingenuous as the day is long aside and I like being able to fire people who provide services to me/I’m not concerned about the very poor notwithstanding … In his own words …
Actually, mama grizzly was better prepared for intense scrutiny ’cause at least she believed/believes what she says, not having contradicted herself er flip/flopped on every major political issue.
You bet’cha!
-
-
-
#24 written by Max 11 months ago
parksie,
See comment #1. I was NOT being facetious.
Add to that:
Next time you have to wait 2 hours at the DMV, remember those lost gummint jobs.
Next time you hit that pothole and it rearranges your car’s suspension, remember those lost gummint jobs.
Next time you can’t get into that national park or state park with the kids, remember those lost gummint jobs.
Next time you read about that outbreak of food borne illness, remember those lost gummint jobs.
And when that WMD gets through a port of entry and kills a few thousand Americans because the inspectors couldn’t cover a higher percentage of containers, remember those lost gummint jobs.
Yes, it’s a good thing that public employees are being laid off. Costs us less.
In the short run. -
-
-
#27 written by GROG 11 months ago
-
No, Grog. I do not believe the private sector is “doing fine,” neither does Michael, and neither does the President.
In the context of his statements, the President was saying that the private sector is recovering. We are adding jobs. We have been adding jobs for 27 months. (In contrast, the public sector is bleeding jobs, because Republicans keep firing people on principle.)
So, what’s happening in the private sector, is that the economy is recovering — but slower than it should, because Republicans refuse to act on a jobs bill.
The private sector is not “doing fine” in the sense that “everything is peachy-keen and we’re all back to normal now.” Only an idiot would think the President actually meant that, but that is what the Republicans are now pretending they believed the President said.
Does that clear things up for you?
-
Grog, let me add — clearly the President does not think the private sector is back to where it should be. He said that several times, in the same press conference from which Republicans are now taking those six words out of context. The President is pushing for Congress to act on a jobs bill. He said that several times in this same press conference. Why would we need a jobs bill, if the private sector is already where it should be?
As I said, only a total idiot would actually think the President meant that the private sector needs no more recovery.
And by the way, since Republicans obviously think the private sector is not “doing fine”, why aren’t Republicans pushing for a jobs bill? Do they really think doing nothing is the solution, and is the right way to help the private sector? If so, what the hell are they criticising the President for?
-
#30 written by rgbact 11 months ago
Grog–
I’m confused as well. I think its cuz liberals are themselves confused. They haven’t figured out a strategy for the economy this year. Do they tout Obama’s great record (which they then appear delusional) or do they admit there are big problems (which they then admit that there efforts have failed). So there gut reaction is the “out of context” excuse but really Obama’s uncertainty in words merely reflects the uncertainty overall in strategy. Obama himself still doesn’t know if he’s a Keynesian or a budget cutter.
Also remember, liberals really think Boehner and GOP governors are purposely squashing things to hurt Obama’s chances. Obama really thinks if it wasn’t for their gutting govt on purpose, the economy would look fine. -
-
GROG,
The private sector is “doing fine” when looking at the first derivative of employment, but not the zeroth derivative of employment. Similarly, government spending is “doing fine” when looking at the first derivative, but not when looking at the zeroth derivative.Neither is a concept that can be boiled down to six words. That’s why context is so important.
-
-
#34 written by rgbact 11 months ago
You think they’re not doing this? Really? They’ve made it very clear that’s what they’re doing.
Now this brings me back to a thread last week. Which really is the more wacky/outrageous conspiracy theory—that Obama wasn’t really born in Hawaii or that the GOP is conspiring to ruin the economy so Obama will lose and they can enact their oligarchy/theocracy/fascist state? The birthers sound pretty sane overall imo. -
#35 written by shortchain 11 months ago
rgbact,
Not that many people believe that the GOP is actively conspiring to ruin the economy. But I, for one, believe that they are such idiots they think the way to stimulate the economy is to cut spending, lower taxes, and implement trickle-down economics.
It isn’t necessary to assume malevolence where stupidity and incompetence are obvious.
-
rgbact,
liberals really think Boehner and GOP governors are purposely squashing things to hurt Obama’s chances.
It’s not hard to come to that conclusion when Boehner and McConnell have said so themselves. Norman Ornstein of the AEI agrees with this as well. This isn’t a conspiracy theory; it’s explicitly stated practice. Are you unable to see the difference?
-
-
#38 written by rgbact 11 months ago
-
rgbact,
From McConnell: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” This didn’t sit well even with the very right-wing Washington Examiner. -
#40 written by shortchain 11 months ago
Michael,
Well, sure — but I don’t believe that most of the GOP would vote to hurt the country just to deny Obama any opportunity to look good. But if they believe (or can talk themselves into believing) that it’s also good for the country, then look out.
Never discount wishful thinking as a source of rationale for bizarre and self-destructive behavior.
-
#41 written by rgbact 11 months ago
From McConnell: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” This didn’t sit well even with the very right-wing Washington Examiner.
Thats nowhere close to purposely squashing the economy. If they honestly think Obama is wrong on everything, by virtue of not agreeing with him they are both helping the country and getting him fired.Btw, at the bottom the writer’s notes his work for NPR, The Guardian, The Huffington Post, Media Matters, Daily Kos, and Think Progress. That doesn’t sound very right wing to me.
-
#42 written by mostlyilurk 11 months ago
-
#43 written by Max 11 months ago
I’m confused as well. I think its cuz liberals are themselves confused.
Yes, we know you are, demonstrably, since you said the President spoke the truth on the issue and then you said you disagreed. Only someone terribly confused would take both sides of the same issue.
As does Romney on healthcare policy and choice and civil rights for gays and, and, and …
-
MW said,
This didn’t sit well even with the very right-wing Washington Examiner.
rgbact said,
That doesn’t sound very right wing to me.
The name “Philip Anschutz” ring a bell? If not, then this should help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Examiner
-
I am still trying to figure this out.
The Republican establishment is crticising the President for having said “the private sector is doing fine.” Because they insist (rightly) that the private sector is not “doing fine”. Presumably, then, they think something should be done about this. But then they stymie President Obama’s attempts to do something about it.
So rgbact and Grog, should we do something about the private sector being “not fine”? Or should we do nothing about it? In other words, should Congress pass a new stimulus bill or jobs bill or some such — or not? If the latter, doesn’t that imply that you think the private sector is “doing fine” on its own?
If you truly believe that President Obama thinks the private sector is “doing fine”, doesn’t that imply he also thinks we needn’t do anything to help the private sector? And if he thinks that, then why would he be pushing for a new jobs bill to help the private sector?
These aren’t rhetorical questions. I’m genuinely curious.
-
#47 written by Max 11 months ago
These aren’t rhetorical questions. I’m genuinely curious.
As am I on the question of if they believe Romney is correct is saying we need to cut more policemen, firefighters and teachers? If they agree, then by how much should each of those professions be cut back? 5%? 10%? 20%? How much?
-
#48 written by GROG 11 months ago
DC,
So rgbact and Grog, should we do something about the private sector being “not fine”? Or should we do nothing about it? In other words, should Congress pass a new stimulus bill or jobs bill or some such — or not? If the latter, doesn’t that imply that you think the private sector is “doing fine” on its own?
Yes, we should do something about it. No, we should not pass a new stimulus bill. No, that doesn’t imply the I think the private sector is “doing fine” on its own.
This is what the GOP has laid out to revive the private sector. They also note that 27 jobs bills are awaiting Senate action. -
#49 written by shortchain 11 months ago
-
GROG,
Your link doesn’t work, but I bet it’s this one:
http://www.gop.gov/indepth/jobs/facts
I’ve reviewed the Republican claim to have “jobs bills” stalled in the Senate before:
http://www.logarchism.com/2012/02/11/inconceivable/
That’s it? Those are jobs bills?
-
They also note that 27 jobs bills are awaiting Senate action.
… and none of those Republican bills have anything whatever to do with creating jobs. You’ve been hoodwinked again, Grog. This “27 jobs bills” is a flat-out lie.
As shortchain pointed out, your link didn’t work. What do you think we should do to create jobs? Fire more people, as Republicans want to do?
And Romney is saying that we don’t need more police or firefighters or teachers. He likes firing people.
-
Thanks for the link, Mono.
The Republican plan seems to be, cut taxes, cut federal spending (in other words, fire more people who have jobs today, and create a bigger federal deficit), cut regulation, make it harder to sue if you’re abused (reduce people’s health and safety).
In other words, do nothing to create more jobs. A total do-nothing agenda — not only do nothing, but do less than nothing, as we dismantle the things that keep us safe and healthy.
Oh, and fire more police and firefighters and teachers.
Grog, that’s the plan? Really?
-
#53 written by shortchain 11 months ago
-
#54 written by GROG 11 months ago
-
#55 written by Max 11 months ago
-
#56 written by rgbact 11 months ago
That plan looks pretty solid to me. I don’t remember Reagan having any big stimulus plans—and things did pretty well in the 80’s. I don’t remember many plans in the 90’s either. Central planning is for communist countries.
I suggest Senate Democrats work on basics like putting a budget together rather than fantasize about shoveling money to bankrupt Democrat states like CA and IL. Right now the private economy just needs some certainty from government, not stimulus. -
#58 written by dawolf 11 months ago
rgbact,
they’d be a lot less bankrupt if they got back what they put in:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html(2004)
(2010, showing same pattern)
-
rgbact’s continuing ad nauseam, inane deflections aside, Dutch is dead and uncertainty in Europe is a major factor affecting the U.S. economy. So rgbact, is Romney gonna wave a magic wand over Europe? Rhetorical.
And speaking of rgbact’s irrelevant Reagan deflection, can one imagine if Tip O’Neill acted like a spoiled brat ie boehner and refused to act on Reagan’s proposals. No, grog and rgbact couldn’t imagine the Speaker of the House refusing to compromise w/the president for the good of the country … oh wait!
mittens childishly uses er misuses the expression, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Soooo, if Romney by some quirk of nature, like Bush43, becomes president, unless the Republicans attain a filibuster proof senate, his flip/flopping, discombobulated agenda is DOA.
Goose meet Karma …
>Dutch, Bush41/43 not being able to pass muster in the wonderful new world of conservative/teabagger extremism, notwithstanding!
-
#60 written by rgbact 11 months ago
they’d be a lot less bankrupt if they got back what they put in:
Interesting. I’d love to see how it was calculated. Given the Feds spend much of their money on Medicare, Soc Sec, and Defense–I’d have to guess that those states are either older or have way more military bases. Let me know if you have the backup of where that money goes.“I agree. And who is responsible for creating that uncertainty?”
Lets just say many democracies find it difficult to make tough decisions. My point is its better to pull the bandage off rather than these monthly can kicking exercises that make people feel good for a week and make business hesitant to invest long term.
-
#61 written by Max 11 months ago
rgbact,
I don’t remember Reagan having any big stimulus plans
Do you truly remember Reagan, or are you just repeating what somebody told you? Perhaps they just didn’t call it “plans” back then. And that recession was not near as severe as the 2007 one.
On the subject of public sector jobs, you know, the ones that don’t contribute to the recovery according to some people. WWRD? What would Reagan do?
Well Ronnie ADDED GOVERNMENT JOBS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! to the tune of 3+% in the early 80’s recession!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Opposed to the REDUCTION of over 2.7% of public sector jobs this time.
Oh yes, and while he went on a spending spree that TRIPLED the national debt! Obama would have to push the debt to THIRTY-THREE TRILLION DOLLARS to match Ronnie!
WWRD? indeed!
Funny how “you righties” conveniently forget the facts when they don’t fit your preconceived notions!!! And y’all wonder why the recovery isn’t going faster. Maybe Obama SHOULD emulate Reagan’s “plan”.
Or maybe you were just “confused” again.
-
#62 written by junk-shot 11 months ago
-
Mentioned this at 538.com ~ 1991 to 1995 worked for PPIC as in Portage County, Ohio, under JTPA er Job Training Partnership Act. “We” helped/trained welfare/dislocated workers, etc. to find jobs.
Oh yea, JTPA was enacted 1982 and the (2) co-sponsors were Ted Kennedy/Dan Quayle.
hmm, who was president in 1982. Also, 1982 Reagan was my C-in-C. I digress.btw, 1995 “our” govt. funding was cut and I got laid off. It happens. So, Speaker of the House Gingrich was responsible for my job loss. Thanx Newt!
After Newt cut “our” funding I qualified as a dislocated worker.
And so it goes …
>
RE: SDI er Star Wars ~ “It was soon derided, largely in the mainstream media, as “Star Wars,” after the popular 1977 film by George Lucas. In 1987, the American Physical Society concluded that a global shield such as “Star Wars” was not only impossible with existing technology, but that ten more years of research was needed to learn whether it might ever be feasible” Emphasis mine!
So Reagan was involved in a govt. boondoggle. Say it’s not true! Ole Dutch has no peers as regards his Teflon presidency.
Although one could also blame Tip O’Neill for SDI. Those damn Speaker’s of the House working w/the president!
-
rgbact,
Given the Feds spend much of their money on Medicare, Soc Sec, and Defense–I’d have to guess that those states are either older or have way more military bases.
Yes, of course. Florida has no old people, no military, and certainly no NASA.
Come on, you can do better than that.Let me know if you have the backup of where that money goes.
Yeah, about that…why do you insist on relying on everyone else to do your research for you? Does Google not work on your browser?
-
I don’t remember Reagan having any big stimulus plans—and things did pretty well in the 80’s.
Then you don’t remember well.
Reagan ran up the biggest deficits the world had ever seen until that point in time — a Big Gubmint Stimulus package to knock your frickin’ socks off.
He also raised taxes eleven (11) times, including what was then the biggest tax increase in history.
Some of the many reasons Saint Ronnie would today be vilified and outcast by the Tea Baggers.
The entire reason “things did pretty well in the 80’s” was because Reagan grew the government and spent like crazy. If he hadn’t shifted the tax burden down the ladder from the rich to the rest of us, we’d even have been on sound economic footing. But though he raised taxes on the middle class (eleven times, as I said) he cut the top tax rates. That was his mistake, and it led to thirty years of deficits, eventually culminating in the Bush Crash of 2008 — the Second Republican Great Recession.
He also shouldn’t have engaged in stimulus spending during good times. Yes, to get us out of the mild recession that happened at the beginning of his tenure — but he really screwed up thereafter.
-
junk-shot:
.…..SDI was a big stimulus plan
Not just SDI, but the whole explosion in military spending, while reducing taxes on the wealthy. Reagan claimed that tax cuts and spending increases would balance the budget. Didn’t work out that way. Twenty years later, Dick “Darth” Cheney said, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter,” while he and George “JarJar” Bush worked hard to collapse the American economy.
Now that we have a Democrat in the White House (and a black one, too!) allofasudden deficits (read: stimulus spending) are the Devil’s playground, even though the first (rather measly) stimulus has revesed the Bush decline, created 4.3 million new jobs, and brought the DOW back to pre-crash levels.
Ah, but rgbact has no memory — probably not being politically aware in the 80’s. Leave it to us old farts to piss on the Reagan worship by telling the truth.
-
My point is its better to pull the bandage off rather than these monthly can kicking exercises that make people feel good for a week and make business hesitant to invest long term.
OOoooo!! We need the Confidence Fairy to give us all assurances that the future will be bright! No one takes any chances on the future unless they have a Golden Ticket that they know for bloody certain is going to pay off!
This is nonsense of the most absurd kind. There was never a Sure Bet. “Uncertainty” is caused by an unyeilding obstructionist opposition that prevents anything from actually getting done — and that even prevents the results of an actual election (see: 2008) from being enjoyed by the public.
-
#69 written by rgbact 11 months ago
Yes, of course. Florida has no old people, no military, and certainly no NASA. Come on, you can do better than that.
No I can’t, thats why I’d like to see the calcs, cuz I’d like to know where the dollars are going. Is it farm subsidies? Earmarks? Just a quick review shows MN and WI have about half the military of MO, but about the same population. Also, GA has about the same military as FL, although its much smaller.“Let me refresh your memory.…..SDI was a big stimulus plan.”
SDI didn’t even get going until 1984 and ended up costing about $4B/yr over next 10 years.…in a $250B military budget. Meanwhile, Obama’s stimulus was $800B…in a total govt budget of about $3.5T. Can’t compare.
-
-
-
-
#73 written by parksie555 11 months ago
This article shows pretty clearly that government spending is “just fine” under the last 6 years or so. The private sector, not so much.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303753904577450910257188398.html
The graph especially shows just how ridiculous the current government spending spike is. And you lefties want even more government spending. Incredible.
Walker/Christie 2016. Although they may have to wait until 2020 if Romney wins a second term. -
p555’s delusional dreams of Walker/Christie aside, interesting teabaggers have all these potential supposed heavyweights waiting in the bullpen and yet this time around they’re stuck w/clueless mittens.
Also Luca Brasi er Christie would not pass muster as a “conservative” in today’s Rep party and WI and NJ won’t be close in this year’s election, notwithstanding …
Indeed, his humongous $$$ advantage aside, WI voted to allow Walker to serve out the rest of his term, but as the teabagger head of a national ticket … hmm. Let’s first see how Luca does in 2013 and Walker does in 2014 shall we, as it wouldn’t surprise me if both decided not to run for re-election. Fudging the numbers from here to Afghanistan, WI is still dead last in job creation after Walker’s “wizardry”.
-
parksie,
The spike in government spending is primarily due to:
* Bush’s 2 unfunded wars
* Bush’s military buldup
* Bush’s unfunded Medicare giveaway to insurance companies
* Bush’s economic collapse (which means more unemployment and food stamp payments)
* Bush’s tax cuts and other kickbacks for the very richVery little of it is going to simulative things like infrastructure spending.
And you want more of the same. Incredible.
-
parksie, from the Laffer and Moore article you linked, showing the intellectual emptiness of that article:
After taking office in 2009, with spending and debt already at record high levels and the deficit headed to $1 trillion, President Obama proceeded to pass his own $830 billion stimulus, auto bailouts, mortgage relief plans, the Dodd-Frank financial reforms and the $1.7 trillion ObamaCare entitlement (which isn’t even accounted for in the chart). While spending did come down in 2010, it wasn’t the result of spending cuts but rather because TARP loans began to be repaid, and that cash was counted against spending.
The “spending” that Laffer and Moore lays on President Obama:
- $830 billion stimulus — most it it was things like tax cuts, that Laffer and Moore approve of, only about a third of it was actual stimulus spending
- auto bailouts — which cost nothing because they were funded through repaid TARP loans, and have been almost completely paid back, and saved over a million jobs and an entire industry, thus generating tax revenues
- mortgage relief plans — which were tiny in comparison to the Federal budget and were almost entirely blocked by Republicans
- the Dodd-Frank financial reforms — this is “spending”? In what way?
- and the $1.7 trillion ObamaCare entitlement — most of which hasn’t been spent yet, and which will reducce the deficit over the next ten years, and it’s money we the public spends anyway, because we are paying for health care already — and in fact, it will save us money.
Furthermore,
While spending did come down in 2010, it wasn’t the result of spending cuts but rather because TARP loans began to be repaid, and that cash was counted against spending.
… which means TARP was a good investment because it did what it was supposed to do, and wound up costing us nothing because it got paid back. With interest.
Laffer and Moore are clearly empty-headed hacks, and anyone who takes them seriously is an idiot.
-
#77 written by rgbact 11 months ago
… which means TARP was a good investment because it did what it was supposed to do, and wound up costing us nothing because it got paid back. With interest.
C’mon DC. The projected losses from TARP are well documented, so you have no excuse for continuing this falsehood. Please don’t bitch about Romney’s lies if you’re going to continue your own. Please state clearly “The govt will lose billions on TARP”. I want to know you understand this.
http://nation.foxnews.com/tarp/2012/04/25/tarp-cost-taxpayers-60-billion -
#79 written by rgbact 11 months ago
-
rgbact,
We’re still owned only $60 billion out of a total of almost a trillion? That’s about 6% of the total. And you’re complaining?
We saved the world economy, and you’re bitching? Cripes, Bush was throwing away $60 billion every six months in Iraq.
And the amount that’s owed back keeps declining. Why is that?
Since you’ve learned how to use The Google, go find out why red states use more federal money than they pay in, and why blue states pay more than they take.
-
By the way, speaking of TARP, the conservative demigod, Saint Ronnie of Reagan, engaged in a very similar bank bailout back in to 1980’s. Republicans fell over themselves lauding what a great idea that was. Not so much now, eh?
And the Laffer — Moore article that parksie linked compalined not only about TARP, but also about Dodd-Frank, which helps ensure that we won’t have to do anything like TARP again in the future. Pure partisan hackery.
-
Oh, another thing rgbact –
The article you linked included a complaint that some of the TARP money that hasn’t yet been repaid is from GM. Notice the bait-and-switch. GM got that money as part of saving the auto industry. GM got that money because it had originally been TARP money, and had been paid back. So the TARP money was repaid, then was re-used to save the auto industry. So you can’t complain that the TARP money wasn’t repaid. It was.
And as for GM repaying it — America now owns some stock in GM, so it isn’t even a loan. It’s an investment, jsut like if you went to the stock market (except that this influx of cash actually is helping GM, rather than just going into the pockets of other stock buyers). In other words, in exchange for that influx of capital, America got equity in the corporation. It’s not money that we’ve “lost,” because we have an asset — GM stock — in exchange for the money.
Now, consider the opportunity cost. If we hadn’t rescued America’s auto industry, we’d have at least an additional million people unemployed, which means not only lower economic activity, but lower tax revenues, and more people on unemployment and other assistence programs. America saved a boatload of money through that investment.
You’ve got to stop reading right-wing rags, rgbact. It’s really hurting your brain.
-
#84 written by rgbact 11 months ago
We’re still owned only $60 billion out of a total of almost a trillion? That’as about 6% of the total. And you’re complaining?
Only about $400B actually went out, so more like 15%. And alot of that to Obama auto bailout.
Since you’ve learned how to use The Google, go find out why red states use more federal money than they pay in, and why blue states pay more than they take.
I’m looking. I suspect its due to military bases and the massive amounts of federal land in red states, which gets used for parks and such.Alaska is about 69% federal land while CT is <1%.
-
-
why red states use more federal money than they pay in, and why blue states pay more than they take.
Romney To States: Don’t Expect Any Help From Me
Suffice it to say, as always, Romney’s political positions are evolving …
>
Why is that?
dc, suffice it to say, as always, Romney et al Republican politicians/pundits are liars!
-
#87 written by Mainer 11 months ago
I think you meant to say Republican/Romney positions are revolving. Has any one thought to explain the concept of visual and audio recording to these fools or would that be futile because it might involve some level of science?
Yup rgb Federal land could explain some small part of it an any one that lives in the NE could explain to you how cracker politicans gamed BRAC to end up with a large share of the nations military bases but states with low incomes produce less taxes and more people with low incomes consume more services because the system does not allow large numbers of their population to earn a living wage. Hell my own dear state is in that situation. My own area would make parts of the deep South look good in comparison but we have been able to maintain some things like our schools at a decent level so we could claw our way back out at some point.
What is really sad is that we are stuck with our teaper govenor for another 2 years unless the corpulant fool chokes on a chicken but we are going to be years undoing the damage he and his cohorts have done. As a good friend said to me the other day, “There are liars and there are Republicans, lieing can be used as one element of an assessment under DSM4 as should freely admiting to being a present day Republican.” -
#88 written by GROG 11 months ago
DC,
So I guess you’re right. It can’t compare. Reagan really screwed things.
Reagan screwed things up so badly that his policies resulted in 92 consecutive months of economic growth, the economy growing by almost one third, real economic growth of 6.8% in 1984 alone, 20 million new jobs created, an unemployment rate of 5.3% by 1989, the rate of inflation being cut in half by 1982, and real per capita income increasing by 18% by 1989.
And all this with double digit interest rates when he took office. He reduced spending by $31 billion in 1981. Non-defense discretionary spending was cut by 14% from 1981 to 1982. Non-defense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level during Reagan’s entire presidency. And his defense spending ended the Cold War with never a shot being fired.
I only wish Obama screwed up as badly as Reagan.
-
-
Reagan screwed things up so badly that his policies resulted in 92 consecutive months of economic growth,
… which he did by setting record-breaking deficits, Keyensian stimulus on steroids. If President Obama had a Democratic congress as Reagan did, we might have that happen now, too.
the economy growing by almost one third,
… while the federal deficit tripled.
real economic growth of 6.8% in 1984 alone,
… again, thanks to skyrocketing federal spending, without the anchor of the Second Republican Great Depression at the beginning of his first term.
20 million new jobs created,
… nearly matching President Clinton. President Obama has had over 4 million new jobs created, which is pretty damn good considering Republican attempts to tank the economy. Compare that to Bush’s paltry 1 million in eight years. (Bush followed Reagan’s prescription pretty much to the letter, but had to deal with an additional decade’s worth of Reagan’s long-term impact.)
an unemployment rate of 5.3% by 1989,
… again, thanks to tripling the national debt. The current unemployment rate would have dropped by half a percent more than it has, if Republicans weren’t having an orgy of fring public workers. And it would have dropped another 1.5% if the American Jobs Act had been passed. Too bad Obama doesn’t have a Democratic Congress, like Reagan had, huh?
the rate of inflation being cut in half by 1982, and real per capita income increasing by 18% by 1989.
Thanks for reminding us how badly Bush screwed up the economy that Obama inherited. But at least we’ve got substantially zero inflation today.
He reduced spending by $31 billion in 1981.
Piker. By the end of 2013, President Obama will have reduced spedning by nearly $700 billion. But Reagan’s one-year drop there is more than made up for by tripling the national debt while in office. I’m not impressed.
Non-defense discretionary spending was cut by 14% from 1981 to 1982. Non-defense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level during Reagan’s entire presidency
I wouldn’t brag about that. This is part of the ongoing damage he did. We’re paying for it today, with falling education scores and crumbling infrastructure.
And his defense spending ended the Cold War with never a shot being fired.
And that’s one of the most common and most offensive lies about Reagan. Russia imploded without Reagan’s help.
-
#91 written by rgbact 11 months ago
If Obama screwed up as bad as Reagan ie Iran-Contra, he would be impeached/removed from office for constitutional violations
Meh, the ongoing leak investigation will be as damning as Iran Contra. Shows someone not in control of his people. But who would’ve thought hiring a Fannie Mae exec/lobbyist as National Security adviser and an ex-partisan senator as Secretary of State would’ve led to politics in national security issues. Its not Obama’s fault for treating these jobs like political payoff positions. -
Meh, the ongoing leak investigation will be as damning as Iran Contra.
Not likely. Actual laws were broken with Iran-Contra. People went to prison. The President was personally involved. Iran-Contra was a clear example of official corruption.
If laws were broken with the current leaks (which seems unlikely), Eric Holder will certainly bring those people to justice. Other than that, it’s a minor bit of nonsense, that Republicans are trying to make a thing out of because 1) there’s nothing actually investigatable about the Obama Administration, and 2) Eric Holder is trying to stop Republcian vote suppression efforts.
-
#94 written by Max 11 months ago
I only wish Obama screwed up as badly as Reagan.
dc, I could not have said it any better. Notice how the righties NEVER deal with the Reagan debt!
And rgbact is brilliant in his ability to see the future of the “investigations”. Hope he will share his precognition with us on which stocks to pick for the best gain in 2012, or maybe the winner of this years World Series. -
Notice how the righties NEVER deal with the Reagan debt!
Of course not. As Darth Cheney said, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”
Righties wax poetic over Reagan’s economic miracle, then refuse to acknowledge that he only acheive it by tripling the national debt.
They can’t get through their heads that government spending improves the economy.
Of course, we’d have done even better if Reagan hadn’t cut taxes on the immensely wealthy. We would have had an economic boom, and not had a debt crisis. And we’d be in far better shape today.
But at least, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter,” which means Republicans are okay with President Obama spending as much as it takes to get us out of the Second Republican Great Depression. Right?
Right?
-
#96 written by GROG 11 months ago
Notice how the righties NEVER deal with the Reagan debt!
Righties wax poetic over Reagan’s economic miracle, then refuse to acknowledge that he only acheive it by tripling the national debt.Absolutely laughable nonsense. First of all, Reagan’s economic boom was not “only achieved” by “tripling the national debt”. You want to “wax poetic” over the fact that he created 20 million jobs, reduced UE to 5.3%, got inflation from Carter under control, dealt with double digit interest rates, and ended price controls on domestic oil which reduced prices and ended shortages and lines at the pumps. But you can just “wax poetic” over all that. It was only because he “tripled the national debt”. Nonsense.
Secondly, debt increased from from 32% of GDP to 51% during Reagan’s presidency. That is not “triple”. In real dollars, debt just over doubled, not tripled. In 1995 under Clinton, debt to GDP was 67%.
You want to blame all Obama’s failures on Republicans, but you “wax poetic” over the fact that Reagan battled Democrats over spending. (And please note that we did NOT have revenue problems in the 80’s.)
Basically, anything bad that happens under a Democratic President is the solely the fault of Republicans in Congress. Anything good that happens under a Democratic President is because of the genius policies of the Democrat and done despite Republicans efforts to destroy the country
Anything bad that happens under a Republican President is NO fault of Democrats in Congress, and only the fault of the Republican President. Anything good that happens under a Republican President doesn’t really count.
The far left never take responsiblity for anything. -
#97 written by GROG 11 months ago
DC,
Reagan ran up the biggest deficits the world had ever seen until that point in time
Completely false. We had seen much larger deficits before Reagan.
The entire reason “things did pretty well in the 80’s” was because Reagan grew the government and spent like crazy.The “entire reason”? Can you back that up with facts or is that just your opinion?
That was his mistake, and it led to thirty years of deficits, eventually culminating in the Bush Crash of 2008 — the Second Republican Great Recession.
Let me get this straight. Reagan’s policies caused the crash of 2008, over 20 years after he left office. But let me guess.…the Clinton years were in some kind of time warp which protected itself from all those evil Reagan policies and when Clinton left office those evil policies escaped from dormancy and caused the crash of 2008. And this was all Reagan’s fault at not one tiny bit the fault of Congress who controlled the purse strings.
Do you honestly believe this stuff? -
#98 written by Max 11 months ago
GROG,
Thanks for the reply. A few points:1) “ got inflation from Carter under control,” Sorry you are too young to remember firsthand the 70’s, because, if you did, you’d remember that inflation was prevalent for YEARS. You missed the WIN button speech. “Whip Inflation Now” by President Gerald Ford. You also missed the fact that Reagan did shit to cure inflation in 1981–82. Paul Volker, Fed Chair from 1979 (Carter appointee) til 1987, jacked interest rate up and up and UP! In 1981, the fed funds rate hit 20% and the prime hit 21.5%! That did the job on inflation. Sorry you missed it. Maybe you could pick up a history book.
2) “ended price controls on domestic oil which reduced prices ” See #1. Because, you wanna tell us which socialist president INSTITUTED those price controls? And which president had an Energy Czar? Hmmm, now that’s a word we hear RW criticism of a lot.
3) “debt increased from from 32% of GDP to 51% during Reagan’s presidency.” Umm. Yes, on that. That debt had DECREASED under EVERY president BEFORE Reagan since after WWII. So Reagan STARTED the increasing debt trend so well stated by Cheney.
4) “ In real dollars, debt just over doubled, not tripled. ” In real dollars, public debt was $908B at the start of Reagan’s term; at the end, he handed Bush I a public debt of $2.7 T. Now 2700⁄908 = 2.97357. Not EXACTLY 3 times, but pretty goddamned close. So you wish to argue over 0.02643? Now THAT is ridiculous. Because 2.97357 is A LOT closer to 3.0 than 2.97357 is to 2.0!!!5) “ In 1995 under Clinton, debt to GDP was 67%.” A REAL fine job of cherry picking!!! You wanna look at what Clinton was given by Bush I and then what he handed off to Bush II. Let’s see now. Try 63+% for the first number and 56% for the second! So Clinton DECREASED the debt/GDP from 1992 to 2001 by over 7% points. And from 1995 to 2001 by 11% points. How many GOP presidents have decreased that metric in the “supply-side” era? Moral of the story: DON’T play bullshit games with numbers. You BS WILL be caught out.
“Do you honestly believe this stuff? “
I’ll leave the remainder of the obvious ridiculousness in your comment as an exercise for the student. -
#99 written by Max 11 months ago
Notice how the righties NEVER deal with the Reagan debt!
“Secondly, debt increased from from 32% of GDP to 51% during Reagan’s presidency. That is not “triple”. In real dollars, debt just over doubled, not tripled. In 1995 under Clinton, debt to GDP was 67%.”
So, what we see in GROG’s paragraph is that, once again, a rightie refuses to deal with the Reagan debt.
He diminishes (incorrectly) it.
He misstates (caught out) it.
He even attempts (through a complete and cherry-picked non sequitur) to somehow equate it with Clinton, as though that president was responsible for a 16% point increase in the debt.
Even though Clinton was president 4 years after Reagan and Reagan’s former VP ran the debt up from 51% of GDP to over 63% of GDP before Clinton took office.
Anything but deal honestly and factually with the Reagan debt policy. So I state again, and will until there is an outbreak in rightie honesty:
Notice how the righties NEVER deal with the Reagan debt! -
GROG,
Reagan’s economic boom was not “only achieved” by “tripling the national debt”. You want to “wax poetic” over the fact that he created 20 million jobs, reduced UE to 5.3%, got inflation from Carter under control, dealt with double digit interest rates
The jobs and unemployment were achieved through the Keynesian countercyclical actions. This, of course, came through a reduction in the tax rates coupled with an increase in spending. And that combination led to a sharp rise in the national debt. It would have been justified by countercyclical policy up to about 1984, but after that the debt should have been paid down through a combination of increased taxes and decreased spending. It wasn’t.
and ended price controls on domestic oil which reduced prices and ended shortages and lines at the pumps
The prices dropped because of sharply decreased demand, coupled with a sharp increase in production by non-OPEC countries other than the United States. Neither of those things had anything to do with domestic oil production.
debt increased from from 32% of GDP to 51% during Reagan’s presidency
The GDP ratio is really irrelevant for anything other than a rough estimate of future ability to pay. You keep going back to that ratio as if it’s something magical. When the economy is healthy, the debt should be paid down, period.
-
You must be logged in to post a comment. - Comment Feed for this Post
Didn't find any related posts :(
About dcpetterson (187 posts)
D. C. Petterson is a novelist and a software consultant in Minnesota who has been writing science fiction since the age of six. He is the author of A Melancholy Humour, Rune Song and Still Life. He lives with his wife, two dogs, two cats, and a lizard, and insists that grandchildren are the reward for having survived teenagers. When not writing stories or software, he plays guitar and piano, engages in political debate, and reads a lot of history and physics texts—for fun. Follow on Twitter @dcpetterson





It’s the state of campaigning. Has been for years.
Lesson #1: Don’t give your opponent a sound bite to use against you.
Of course, Romney, not being able to stand an unforced error from Obama, immediately gave one back with HIS “firefighters, police and teachers” comment.
MY next ads, and I’d continue to run them for months, would base on that comment, with the tag line,
“Next time your house is on fire, call a CEO!” and
“Next time you get robbed, call a corporate raider!“and
“If your child is failing in school, call Bain Capital Tutoring!”