First, we have this new and soon to be classic
1. President Obama has tripled the deficit.
FALSE.
President Bush's last budget had a 1.416 trillion dollar deficit. President Obama's first budget reduced that to 1.29 trillion dollars. The deficit came to 8.94 percent of gross domestic product for the year ended September 30, versus 10 percent in fiscal 2009. These are the facts.
2. President Obama raised taxes.
FALSE
At Pig Pickin’ and Politickin’, a barbecue-fed rally organized here last week by a Republican women’s club, a half-dozen guests were asked by a reporter what had happened to their taxes since President Obama took office.“Federal and state have both gone up,” said Bob Paratore, 59, from nearby Charlotte, echoing the comments of others. After further prodding — including a reminder that a provision of the stimulus bill had cut taxes for 95 percent of working families by changing withholding rates — Mr. Paratore’s memory was jogged.“You’re right, you’re right,” he said. “I’ll be honest with you: it was so subtle that personally, I didn’t notice it.”
Few people apparently did.
(Sigh) if only my commenters were as open minded as Mr. Paratore.
3. President Obama bailed out the banks.
FALSE
It was President Bush that bailed out the banks long before Obama took office.
4. The stimulus didn't work
FALSE
According to the CBO, the raised employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs.
Want to see how the stimulus is working in ways that the "liberal" media won't show you? Check out these stories on YouTube, courtesy of the DOT.
5. Businesses will hire if they get tax cuts.
FALSE
Businesses will hire when they get more customers. In order to get more customers, we need to focus on the engine that drives our economy: the middle class. One of the main reasons why President Clinton was so successful in his tenure was his adherence to this fact. More people had more money so they spent more. Demand for goods went up because people weren't facing the rising cost of....well...everything...like they are today. Trickle down and supply side economics were proven to be failures.
With Warren Buffet paying 17 percent of his income in taxes and his secretary paying over 30 percent, the possibility of more customers seems unlikely.
6. Health Care reform costs 1 trillion dollars
FALSE
The law will actually reduced government deficit by 138 billion. This is from the CBO.
7. Government spending is bad for the economy.
FALSE
This one is especially frustrating for me. President Eisenhower used tax payer money (the top rate was 90 percent in his time in office) and built the national highway system. Clearly, this had an enormously positive effect on the economy, literally changing the American way of life and bringing us the system of commerce we have today. Improving infrastructure makes it more attractive for companies to set up shop in our country and is the key element to improving our economy.
It's become increasingly difficult for me to be fair minded with people that refuse to look past these myths. The old axiom that "there are two sides to every story" really needs to be ejected from the capsule for several of these issues. I have no problem entertaining a debate on the pros and cons of welfare capitalism, for example.
But when statements like "Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme" are made, there is only side to the argument that is correct. It should come as no surprise to me, then, that Eric, even after all of the facts regarding the behavior of our nation's financial services system have come to light, pines for the privatization of Social Security.
Really? Still?
And people wonder why I question awareness of self interest. Sheesh...
6 comments:
Myth: TARP cost US taxpayers 700 billion dollars.
Fact: The companies that got TARP funds have paid most of the money back. Banks were in large part in a big hurry to repay the loans because of restrictions on executive pay that outstanding TARP loans imposed.
Currently there's only about $50 billion outstanding. AIG and GM have yet to repay the loans, and if they do so the program will result in a slight profit for the taxpayers.
Am I happy about TARP, and the self-dealing CEOs who screwed us over with their incompetence and greed, and then gave themselves monster bonuses? No. And it's ridiculous that Democrats are being blamed for something that's about 95% the fault of Bush and his totally inept FTC and Treasury Department.
But these low-down, good-for-nothing CEOs were holding the economy hostage, and the only way to get the Bush administration to push TARP through was to cut a sweetheart deal with the companies. It was a necessary evil, but there should have been real punishment for the scumbags that brought this mess down on us.
What's really incredible is that the very same companies that received so much government largesse are now financing the campaigns of Republicans who rail against the bailout.
This is no accident. These same candidates are the ones who yell about reducing government regulations, the ones that are aimed at stopping the companies from repeating the same debacles in the financial markets and the Gulf.
They know that the Republicans are just mouthing nonsense about opposing TARP. They could always afford to oppose it because they knew responsible Democrats would give them the votes needed to get it passed.
The corporations know that if they get people like Christine "who-needs-to-read-the-constitution-to-know-what-it-says" O'Donnell elected to office they'll be able to get them to toe the line and rubber-stamp more corporate free rides at the expense of the American taxpayer. Money talks very loudly, and it's the only thing Republicans seem to listen to.
MYTH: Government caused the financial crisis by forcing banks to give mortgages to poor people and minorities. Taxes and government spending "take money away" from and generally harm the economy. I'm so tired of hearing this considering that it was the financial sector that clearly was the cause of the crisis due to a complete lack of regulation.
it was the financial sector that clearly was the cause of the crisis due to a complete lack of regulation.
Yet another MYTH.
The social security part was funny. If you read the link, the argument entirely boils down to saying that Social Security isn't like a Ponzi scheme because while the two are alike in function, only a Ponzi scheme intends to deceive. Lol. So do you think a "trust fund" of IOU's is the same as money in the bank? Why or why not?
Regarding your "myths":
1. Wait, which branch of government is responsible for spending bills? I just can't quite remember. That said, saying Obama (and the Democrats) are entirely responsible for the deficit increase isn't very fair. I'll score this a draw.
2. AFAIK, you are right about this one. However, which direction do you think taxes will have to go in the future given #1?
3. Yes indeed. However, given that the stimulus the bailout of GM happened on his watch, I'm not certain that "oh yeah? but he didn't bail out the banks!" is particularly impressive. There is one other problem also - Senator Obama did indeed vote for bailing out the banks, so it's not as though he was heroically opposed to it.
4. I see you still haven't realized the problem with citing the CBO. Even leaving that aside, a question for you. What happens to employment created by the stimulus when stimulus money ceases to flow from DC?
5. Where did you hear this? The statement doesn't even make sense. Businesses might do a lot of things if they get tax cuts. Hiring is only one of them. Your explanation is typical Mark - slather on some buzzwords and hope noone notices that you have no idea what you are talkinga bout.
6. Once again not understanding the problem with citing the CBO. Even Krugman told you this in one of his columns. Anyway, I think the accurate answer is that nobody has any idea how much the reform will cost. However, good luck with your fantasy. The notion that you can add a bunch of people to insurance rolls, and add mandates to insurers without increasing costs.. well, only a liberal could believe that.
7. I would agree that government spending is not, by definition, bad for the economy. However, neither would I agree with the opposite statement. The relevant question is whether government spending is more likely to be good or more likely to be bad for the economy. As you might imagine, I think the answer to that question is pretty clearly towards the "bad." To put my reasoning in the form of a question: why would you think that resources allocated by the political process are likely to be more efficiently allocated than resources allocated by the individuals that created those resources? The answer is that it isn't likely at all.
And people wonder why I question awareness of self interest
I don't wonder about it all. I just see it as insufferable hubris and hypocrisy.
You certainly aren't willing to let me tell you how to live, are you? If I tell you to stop swearing and drinking and being a liberal schmuck, because *I* really know what is best for you, are you just gonna say "oh, okay"?
Myth: TARP cost US taxpayers 700 billion dollars.
Fact: The companies that got TARP funds have paid most of the money back.
Okay, and?!? Even if we assume that every penny was paid back, and that not one cent was wasted (a ridiculous assumption), not one penny of that was paid back to the taxpayers, was it? Not one penny of it will ever be paid back to the taxpayers, will it? Therefore the cost is still borne by the taxpayers, isn't it?
It sounds good if you say it fast enough, but it's still a deliberate lie.
Post a Comment