Thursday, October 15, 2009

Research is fun!

Discrediting misleading graphs is ALSO fun!

Clicky for full size

4 comments:

Joe Markowitz said...

During the Bush presidency, we added $4 trillion to the national debt. In addition to questioning whether it was necessary to run a deficit at all during a period of mostly pretty good economic times, you might also question whether it was moral to conduct a war on the country's credit card, and you might also have to wonder whether all that deficit spending might have over-heated the economy and caused exacerbated some of the economic problems we have faced in the past year or so.

Now that we are trying to work our way out of the most severe recession since the 1930's, almost every economist agreed that we needed to run a very large deficit to stimulate the economy. Republicans agreed with this also, except that they wanted to do it with more tax cuts and less spending. But deficit spending was judged to be a better fiscal policy because consumer spending had gone down so much that tax cuts might not have created as much of a stimulus to the economy.

So what has happened is that now that we are trying to recover from a recession and most people agree that the government needed to increase the deficit at least temporarily, all of a sudden all of the people who never said a peep about Bush's $4 trillion worth of deficit spending are very concerned about the deficit. How can those people have any credibility?

JP said...

"almost every disproven Kaynsian economist agreed that we needed to run a very large deficit to stimulate the economy."
Fixed that for ya.

The Recession was not the most severe since the '30s. It is was then made into one now that First Bush's ill advised TARP, and then Obama's ignorant Pork bill named a "stimulus" that is not intended to stimulate the economy.
It is intended to do just what was done in the '30s. . . give us a Decade Long Financial crisis so the Big Gov't morons can broaden their scope.
I'll remind you as well that those really spendy bills Bush signed at the end of his term were written by Pelosi and Reid et al, and even then he sent a few back to them to be done better, but he A: wasn't, ever, a full Conservative(hence TARP and too much non-war Gov't spending), and B: Not willing to shut down the Gov't in a showdown, especially with troops in a war zone.

Those of us who have always been on Bush's case over spending , many of whom are now being slimed like people like you, will be reminded also we Supported him on many things, but we also stopped him from doing stuff. If we blindly followed him, Amnesty would have passed. And while we may not have been as vocal about his over the years total, Obama wants to Quadruple that amount.
If your methods were the way to go, Argentina, Zimbabwe and many other similar national economies would be ruling the financial world.
But you best sign Obama is not running the Economy right is the Flipping Communists of China are telling him he is doing things far too un-capitalistically.

NotClauswitz said...

The stimulus has been very good to Hollywood on the propaganda front.

Fletch said...

"almost every economist agreed"
"most people agree"

Look up "Appeal to widespread belief." You'll find it in a list of fallacious arguments. You keep using those, I expect better arguments from a lawyer.

"very large deficit to stimulate the economy. Republicans agreed with this also, except that they wanted to do it with more tax cuts"
So Republicans agreed there needed to be a large deficit? And they supported a high deficit by supporting tax cuts? Then why is it that when taxes are cut revenues increase?

"all of a sudden all of the people who never said a peep about Bush's $4 trillion worth of deficit spending are very concerned about the deficit."
I'd be very interested to know where you were listening for these non-existent "peeps." I'm a conservative, I watch conservative news, and listen to conservative radio, and it was difficult to find someone who applauded Bush's tremendous spending.