Here are some facts

  • The Obama Administration has put in some excellent policies, including age restrictions on credit cards and cutting out the middle man in loans (this second one brings some amusement with it: conservatives claim to hate the government interfering with the private sector, but they don’t seem to realize that the only reason this part of the private sector could thrive was because of government backing. They should approve of this move – except they blindly hate Obama).
  • The second bailout was the right move. It prevented a collapse of the credit markets from the Bush recession.
  • Many of the businesses that got bailouts are paying back that money.
  • McCain would have just followed the Republicans (as has been his thing over the past few purely political, dishonest years of his life) and slashed social programs all over the place; people would lose homes, only making things worse.
  • Tax cuts alone don’t create jobs. They do, however, increase debt.

8 Responses

  1. The right wing run around putting a nonsense spin on this kind of stuff. Where nothing was accomplished was where the Republicans said ‘no’ on everything else, even policies that they used champion. Lies and deception is the norm for them and they hate the average person and favor the wealthy and corporations. If they get the lead back, they will just plunge us back to the Bush nightmare.

  2. Tax cuts only increase debt if spending doesn’t decrease. Tax increases almost never decrease debt because they are typically to pay for a new boondoggle.

    I haven’t ever claimed that the republicans are any better of a party. To think the democrats have the little guy anymore in mind is insanity. They simply favor other special interests.

    “Stimulus” spending simply inflates the value of labor. Keynes may be right that government spending can reverse recessions but the amount of sovereign debt incurred is so high that it has a further, potentially more long term, negative effect on the economy.

    You can demonize republicans if you want but democrats are just as bad. If you really want to know what will happen with a republican congress it will simply restrict the spending of either party. The same thing a republican governor will do in Maine.

    Unless you support one party rule, and I don’t, a balance of power will be a plus. Both parties restricted by each other. Obama may get a second term if he moderates, if not than republicans will likely make more gains in 2012 and Obama will be out, returning us to “one party” rule and making things worse.

    I seem to remember the economy being pretty good under bush until a democratic takeover of congress…

  3. At this point there is no “if” Bob, its pretty much a done deal. All that’s left is to see whether they can fix anything or if they simply propose and pass other, just as damaging boondoggles.

  4. Under Bush:

    2000s a ‘lost decade’ for U.S. economy, workers.

    The decade that just ended has been the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times by a wide range of data, with zero net job growth and the slowest rise in economic output since the 1930s. Many who stayed employed were hurt too, with middle-income families making less in 2008, when adjusted for inflation, than they did in 1999 — the first decade since the 1960s that median incomes have fallen. On balance, American families were worse off:

    And the net worth of American households — the value of their houses, retirement funds and other assets minus debts — has also declined when adjusted for inflation, compared with sharp gains in every previous decade since data were initially collected in the 1950s.

    “This was the first business cycle where a working-age household ended up worse at the end of it than the beginning, and this in spite of substantial growth in productivity, which should have been able to improve everyone’s well-being,” said Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank.

  5. Good cut and paste skills, but what about from 2000 to 2006?

    2002 to 2004? Those were the only 4 years of total republican control.

    Even if it showed downturn during only the republican controlled years it only reinforces my point that one party control is bad for us, regardless of what party.

    And if the data showed that it was worse when the dems controlled the purse strings than it just shows that they are no better than the republicans at doing so.

  6. The washington post has a nice graphic showing the downturn starting in 2009 that is after 2 years of a democratic controlled congress and a new democratic white house.

    I forget, did you mention spin?

  7. This is unrelated but this website seems to be the best one I have found for following the returns tomorrow:

    I know its a right wingish organization but election returns are election returns. They are going to follow the big referendums also.

    Let me know if someone finds a better site please.

  8. Nonsense about Republican control. With dogshit Bush in the White House, all 8 years were Republican control.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: