10 Lessons for Tea Baggers from C&L

from Crooks and Liars

10 Lessons for Tea Baggers
By Jon Perr Tuesday Sep 15, 2009 8:00am

Here, then, are 10 Lessons for Tea Baggers:

  1. President Obama Cut Your Taxes
   2. The Stimulus is Working
   3. First Ronald Reagan Tripled the National Debt...
   4. ...Then George W. Bush Doubled It Again
   5. Republican States Have the Worst Health Care
   6. Medicare is a Government Program
   7. Barack Obama is Not a Muslim
   8. Barack Obama was Born in the United States
   9. 70,000 Does Not Equal 2,000,000
  10. The Economy Almost Always Does Better Under Democrats

1. President Obama Cut Your Taxes

As in April, the Tea Baggers continued to display their fundamental misunderstanding of U.S. history and the American Revolution. Apparently, the right-wing zealots are outraged by no taxation with representation.

As promised, Barack Obama in the stimulus package delivered on his pledge of tax relief for 95% of American households. Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) didn't only jump start gross domestic product and refill empty state coffers in the second quarter of 2009. As Nate Silver thoroughly documented, "Obama has cut taxes for 98.6% of working households."

Nevertheless, raging Tea Baggers spouting Republican Tax Day lies took to the streets not to thank the President, but to blame him for the tax cuts they received.

A very good summary that we should all commit to memory.

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/10-le ssons-for-tea-baggers

Tags: C&L, Cut and Paste, Diary Drought, Read, weep (all tags)

Comments

19 Comments

Re: 10 Lessons for Tea Baggers from C&L

But Beck explains it without all this crazy spin!

by January 20 2009-09-15 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: 10 Lessons for Tea Baggers from C&L

The economy always does better under Democrats.

As an ex-Republican, I just have this to say.

Do you have to rub it in?

by spirowasright 2009-09-15 05:54PM | 0 recs
Not always; Reagan, Clinton both succeeded

Reagan's record on the economy was a strong one, particularly in view of what he inherited. The economy he left to his successor was one-third larger than what he began with, and he created 18 million new jobs. And brought down inflation....and brought down interest rates.

The record is even more remarkable when you consider that Volker's Fed implemented a tight monetary policy during those years to break inflation....shows that Reagan's tax cuts had a powerful stimulative effect in terms of fiscal policy.

by BJJ Fighter 2009-09-15 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Not always; Reagan, Clinton both succeeded

You can always create a short term expansion by spending like there's no tomorrow.  Reagan tripled the deficit but only got slightly better than average growth?  It's only because W. has made everyone else look good that you can consider than an accomplishment.

by Jess81 2009-09-16 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Not always; Reagan, Clinton both succeeded

To grow the economy by a third, while simultaneously eliminating double-digit inflation is probably unprecedented in our history. And I'd certainly call that an accomplishment.

by BJJ Fighter 2009-09-16 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: 10 Lessons for Tea Baggers from C&L

The Stimulus is Working

Define working.

by Charles Lemos 2009-09-15 06:15PM | 0 recs
2. The Stimulus is Working

I didn't think it polite to cut and paste the entire article, but since you asked, I'll cut and paste the answer from C&L.

A prime target of Bagger bashing, the $787 billion stimulus package passed over the near-total obstructionism of Congressional Republicans is already paying huge dividends for the economy.

To be sure, at 9.7% the unemployment rate remains dismal. But the impact of ARRA and other government actions extends well beyond the Obama administration's claim it has created or preserved one million jobs to date. As I documented in August:

"After steep declines of 5.4% and 6.4% in the previous two quarters, gross domestic product fell only 1% in the last three months. And while the ARRA overall added "up to 3 full percentage points of annualized growth in the quarter," President Obama's stimulus helped precisely where it was needed most - rescuing devastated state budgets."

Earlier this month, the reliably Republican Wall Street Journal agreed the Obama administration has helped stem the bleeding from the Bush Recession:

"Many forecasters say stimulus spending is adding two to three percentage points to economic growth in the second and third quarters, when measured at an annual rate. The impact in the second quarter, calculated by analyzing how the extra funds flowing into the economy boost consumption, investment and spending, helped slow the rate of decline and will lay the groundwork for positive growth in the third quarter -- something that seemed almost implausible just a few months ago. Some economists say the 1% contraction in the second quarter would have been far worse, possibly as much as 3.2%, if not for the stimulus.

For the third quarter, economists at Goldman Sachs & Co. predict the U.S. economy will grow by 3.3%. "Without that extra stimulus, we would be somewhere around zero," said Jan Hatzius, chief U.S. economist for Goldman."

If you are grumpy about unemployment, you can either look at the slowing of the rate of job loss, and either believe or not in those statistics being lagging indicators, or - I suppose - you could believe the economy would be better had Obama done nothing.

Free country.

by QTG 2009-09-16 02:25AM | 0 recs
You can do anything with statistics

but it doesnt' mean that your numbers are relevant, or even valid.

Most economists measure the federal defecit as a % of GDP. When Reagan inherited a major mess from Carter (arguably, the worst President of the 20th century), the defecit was 2.6% of GDP; when he left office, it was 2.9%. Given that it peaked at +6% in 1983, it's clear that we really did grow our way out of a serious defecit problem. All while rebuilding the nation's defenses and winning the Cold War.

by BJJ Fighter 2009-09-15 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: You can do anything with statistics

You're arguing that Reagan created a huge deficit problem and then fixed most of what he created.  That's great, but when I judge Obama on deficit reduction, I'm going to look at what he did to fix the Bush deficits, not merely whether he fixed his own deficits.

by Steve M 2009-09-16 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: You can do anything with statistics

No, what I'm arguing is that Reagan (a) restored economic growth, while simultaneously (b) dramatically reducing inflation---something which the Keynesians had always told us was impossible. Breaking inflation was no small feat, as three previous Presidents had failed at it: Nixon (wage and price controls), Ford (WIN buttons), and Carter (just kind of wishing it would go away...)

The point is that Reagan grew the economy without materially worsening the deficit, not that it fluctuated during his two terms. And an increase from 2.6% of GDP to 2.9% did not amount to "tripling" the problem, as the diarist suggested.

by BJJ Fighter 2009-09-16 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: You can do anything with statistics

I'm just struggling to understand your statement that we grew ourselves out of a serious deficit problem under Reagan.

by Steve M 2009-09-16 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: You can do anything with statistics
 Reagan and Daddy Bush nailed the coffin shut on Labor, destoyed the middle class, ensured the climate remained on a path to destruction and derailed plans which would have minimized middle eastern oil's importance years down the road to 9/11.
 Don't discuss Reagan/Bush/Bush2 on bjj's terms. Those terms are LIES.
by QTG 2009-09-16 11:43AM | 0 recs
Sorry----I know the truth hurts

Before you go calling people liars, maybe you should know what you're talking about first. But you're like a lot of partisans; when things go south, you resort to name-calling instead of getting your facts straight.

It's not like the numbers for the Reagan economic boom are divined from some kind of Ouija Board...they're from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, or any number of other sources. Growth in GDP, growth in employment, reduction in inflation and interest rates. And we all know what he inherited: 21% interest rates, 14% inflation, 7% unemployment.

You can have your own opinions...but not your own facts.

by BJJ Fighter 2009-09-16 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Why is a Reagonbot

here at all? That demented sumbitch was pure evil.

by QTG 2009-09-16 04:28PM | 0 recs
Ever heard of "Reagan Democrats"?

Ronald Reagan was anything but evil; I'd recommend any of Lou Cannon's Reagan biographies if you'd like to broaden your horizons. He was a good and decent man, who didn't know how to be petty, and had an infectious optimism and love of country.

Reagan Democrats feel the strong urge to leave the party when it gets hijacked by 60's retreads like Nancy Pelosi. We believe in Free Trade, Offshore Drilling, Growth and Opportunity, and defending Freedom. We realize that while America is not perfect, it's still the greatest country that God ever gave to man. And given that most jobs are created by small businesses, we reject the anti-business, knee jerk rhetoric that is currently being pedaled in Washington. As Jack Kemp once said, "you can't really say that you love jobs, and yet hate the job creators."

We Reagan Dems loved Bill Clinton and the 90's, when Clinton proved that yes, Democrats can govern competently and effectively.

And we dream of the day when "the sensible center" will once again lead the Democratic Pary. Given the takeover of the GOP by right wing loons during the last eight years, our party's leftward lurch will gradually be seen as a huge missed opportunity to reclaim the center, and to change America for the better.

by BJJ Fighter 2009-09-16 06:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry----I know the truth hurts

I voted for Reagan the first time because his whole platform was based on reducing the national debt.  Needless to say, he lied (he didn't even try) and I didn't vote for him the second time.

No President is a good president if he doesn't even attempt to fulfill his campaign promises.  They are after all, the reason people voted for him.

by GFORD 2009-09-19 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: You can do anything with statistics

There's always a lag time between the implementation of an economic policy, and the results which it ultimately produces. I was simply making the point that once Reagan's tax cuts passed, the deficit spiked to 6.3% as the recession of 1981-'82 worsened. Once growth kicked in during late 1983, tax revenues to the Federal Government increased, and the deficit % returned to a healthier relationship versus Gross Domestic Product. The fact that inflation remained low would suggest that the Reagan deficits were ultimately not a serious issue...tax cuts work.

by BJJ Fighter 2009-09-16 01:46PM | 0 recs
Re: You can do anything with statistics

Whenever someone makes the blanket statement that "tax cuts work," as opposed to claiming that they worked to accomplish a specific objective in a specific instance, I know not to take them seriously.

People who want to attribute every good result to Reagan's 1981 tax cut, while completely ignoring the fact that Reagan also increased taxes in 1982 and 1983, are the sort of folks who would rather just confirm their pre-existing beliefs than engage in any kind of scientific process.  Gee, I just proved that tax increases work!

by Steve M 2009-09-16 01:58PM | 0 recs
uh dude

Reagan raised taxes in 1982.

by DTOzone 2009-09-23 11:06PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads