It's bogus to say that the deficit percentage went down "73%" when the thing measured is an actual percentage and went down 7.2%. Which is a great number, but pumping it up by taking a percentage of a percentage undermines your argument.
Ditto for the unemployment rate: it didn't go down 29%. It went down 2.3%.
The GDP growth rate is listed as "11.5 diff" when it went up 11.2%. Why not just do straight math?
When the point of your post is that "facts matter," you really should get the facts right.
Yeah, I know that these graphics are just click bait, but still...
I think a big reason is the Bush presidency and to some extent, Clinton (Bill). Most Republicans are reluctant to admit this in public, but the Bush presidency severely damaged the Republican brand. After the losses in 2006 and 2008, the Republican leaders made a decision that the only way back to political relevancy was to make Obama the Democratic Bush. They tried a scorched earth strategy of complete non-cooperation on any legislation and that paid dividends early on in the 2010 mid-terms. They were helped by the fact that Obama ran as a populist but governed as a pragmatist - continuing the bailout of banks, auto industry without doing much about bailing out homeowners.
Once they found a winning formula, they stuck to it. They have done extremely well in the state elections and now hold the Senate and the House, so like it or not, it's a strategy that has worked for them so far. The only thing that hasn't worked is the framing of Obama as the Democratic Bush. The big reason for that is the absence of spectacular failures under Obama. Nothing that he has done has been flawless but from Obamacare to the stimulus, nothing has been a glaring failure like the financial meltdown or Iraq war or the response to Katrina. The main reason is that Obama has been a very conservative President (in the literal sense of the word) - cautious, believing in incrementalism over radical changes.
Despite all the rhetoric, Obamacare was designed to affect a very small percentage of the population and leave the most of the current system intact. Given the depth of the economic downturn, the stimulus was a little bit of everything for everyone instead of being a bold step to turbo charge the economy. People who pay attention to policy understand that but if any legislation is a thousand pages long, it's easy to exploit the lack of trust in public institutions and work the public into a state of frenzy by demagoguing. Once they win back the presidency, I expect the Republican leaders to focus on governance again.
3 comments:
It's bogus to say that the deficit percentage went down "73%" when the thing measured is an actual percentage and went down 7.2%. Which is a great number, but pumping it up by taking a percentage of a percentage undermines your argument.
Ditto for the unemployment rate: it didn't go down 29%. It went down 2.3%.
The GDP growth rate is listed as "11.5 diff" when it went up 11.2%. Why not just do straight math?
When the point of your post is that "facts matter," you really should get the facts right.
Yeah, I know that these graphics are just click bait, but still...
Who says you can't calculate the percent of a percent?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOb6d3q3PO0
Somehow none of your comments take away from the fact that the president's policies have improve the economy.
I think a big reason is the Bush presidency and to some extent, Clinton (Bill). Most Republicans are reluctant to admit this in public, but the Bush presidency severely damaged the Republican brand. After the losses in 2006 and 2008, the Republican leaders made a decision that the only way back to political relevancy was to make Obama the Democratic Bush. They tried a scorched earth strategy of complete non-cooperation on any legislation and that paid dividends early on in the 2010 mid-terms. They were helped by the fact that Obama ran as a populist but governed as a pragmatist - continuing the bailout of banks, auto industry without doing much about bailing out homeowners.
Once they found a winning formula, they stuck to it. They have done extremely well in the state elections and now hold the Senate and the House, so like it or not, it's a strategy that has worked for them so far. The only thing that hasn't worked is the framing of Obama as the Democratic Bush. The big reason for that is the absence of spectacular failures under Obama. Nothing that he has done has been flawless but from Obamacare to the stimulus, nothing has been a glaring failure like the financial meltdown or Iraq war or the response to Katrina. The main reason is that Obama has been a very conservative President (in the literal sense of the word) - cautious, believing in incrementalism over radical changes.
Despite all the rhetoric, Obamacare was designed to affect a very small percentage of the population and leave the most of the current system intact. Given the depth of the economic downturn, the stimulus was a little bit of everything for everyone instead of being a bold step to turbo charge the economy. People who pay attention to policy understand that but if any legislation is a thousand pages long, it's easy to exploit the lack of trust in public institutions and work the public into a state of frenzy by demagoguing. Once they win back the presidency, I expect the Republican leaders to focus on governance again.
Post a Comment