Monday, October 25, 2010

8 Lies Republicans Want Us To Believe

During this election campaign the American public has been inundated with lies from the Republican Party.   Some of these lies have been told and repeated for so long that they have assumed the proportions of myth, and are accepted by a great many Americans.   But they are still just Republican lies.

I have been trying to attack these lies one at a time, and have written several posts about them.   But Dave Johnson over at Campaign for America's Future has combined them into one very good post.   He cuts through all the BS and exposes these mythic lies, and then tells the truth about them.   Here are those 8 lies:


1) President Obama tripled the deficit.
Reality: Bush's last budget had a $1.416 trillion deficit. Obama's first budgetreduced that to $1.29 trillion.
2) President Obama raised taxes, which hurt the economy.
Reality: Obama cut taxes. 40% of the "stimulus" was wasted on tax cuts which only create debt, which is why it was so much less effective than it could have been.
3) President Obama bailed out the banks.
Reality: While many people conflate the "stimulus" with the bank bailouts, the bank bailouts were requested by President Bush and his Treasury Secretary, former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson. (Paulson also wanted the bailouts to be "non-reviewable by any court or any agency.") The bailouts passed and began before the 2008 election of President Obama.
4) The stimulus didn't work.
Reality: The stimulus worked, but was not enough. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus raised employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs.
5) Businesses will hire if they get tax cuts.
Reality: A business hires the right number of employees to meet demand. Having extra cash does not cause a business to hire, but a business that has a demand for what it does will find the money to hire. Businesses want customers, not tax cuts.
6) Health care reform costs $1 trillion.
Reality: The health care reform reduces government deficits by $138 billion.
7) Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, is "going broke," people live longer, fewer workers per retiree, etc.
Reality: Social Security has run a surplus since it began, has a trust fund in the trillions, is completely sound for at least 25 more years and cannot legally borrow so cannot contribute to the deficit (compare that to the military budget!) Life expectancy is only longer because fewer babies die; people who reach 65 live about the same number of years as they used to.
8) Government spending takes money out of the economy.
Reality: Government is We, the People and the money it spends is on We, the People. Many people do not know that it is government that builds the roads, airports, ports, courts, schools and other things that are the soil in which business thrives. Many people think that all government spending is on "welfare" and "foreign aid" when that is only a small part of the government's budget.


Don't believe the lies being told by Republicans.   They just want to return to power, and they'll say anything to do that.   If the American people fall for this nonsense and return them to power, the recession will continue unabated and the country will be damaged for many more years.   Remember when you go to the polls this November, it was the Republican policies that put the American economy in the mess it is in right now and those policies have not changed.

13 comments:

  1. "1) President Obama tripled the deficit.
    Reality: Bush's last budget had a $1.416 trillion deficit. Obama's first budget reduced that to $1.29 trillion."

    Until, of course, it was adjusted to $1.5 trillion.

    If you dig far enough into the article, you'll see that Bush's penultimate budget had a deficit of $459 billion. Bad enough, but not as bad as his ultimate budget, which wasn't as bad as Obama's first budget. His second budget (as yet to be passed by Congress) is projected to have a deficit of $1.27 trillion, but where will that be after it's been "adjusted" like his first deficit was?

    Just because the deficit tripled between the last two Bush budgets doesn't mean that we can continue with trillion-plus dollar deficits indefinitely.

    Bush started it, but Obama is compounding our problems.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "4) The stimulus didn't work.
    Reality: The stimulus worked, but was not enough. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus raised employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs."

    Then why has unemployment held above 9.5% for the last 14 months?

    What concerns me about this Administration's economic policies is that trillion-dollar deficits and 10-ish percent unemployment will become the new "normal."

    ReplyDelete
  3. If Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme, then where is the money? It has all been squandered.(oh, you think those congressional IOUs are good for something?)

    ReplyDelete
  4. This chart, plotting actual unemployment against what was projected under the stimulus package, says it all.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nice try, CT. But you can't blame the Democrats for unemployment when Republicans have filibustered any real try at a stimulus (and the attempt to stop job outsourcing).

    Dick. Those congressional IOUs are called treasury bonds and yes, I do think they are good.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Fillibuster?

    Despite almost universal opposition by the GOP, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed Congress and was signed into law on February 17, 2009, due largely to the promise that if implemented, unemployment would never exceed 8%.

    Twenty months and over three-quarters of a trillion dollars later, a lot of us wish the Republicans had been able to fillibuster the stimulus package.

    ReplyDelete
  7. That was just a pittance, CT. We're still waiting for a real stimulus package.

    ReplyDelete
  8. A pittance? Really? Do you have any idea how much three-quarters of a trillion dollars is?

    Check this out.

    ReplyDelete
  9. CT, sounds like you drank the Kool-Aid the Republicans have been serving, not to mention the BS they've been shoving. It took eight years under an incompetent president, Bush, to get us in this mess. Yet you blame President Obama for the ills of his predecessor when he's only had 18 months to clean up the mess the Repubs left and has had to do so against the prevailing wind of their self-serving rhetoric.

    No, the "Party of No" is completely and morally bankrupt, willing to say any lie to regain power. They had their chance and failed the American people deplorably. Obama and his, albeit skittish but Democrat-controlled Congress is our only hope.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Yet you blame President Obama for the ills of his predecessor when he's only had 18 months to clean up the mess the Repubs left and has had to do so against the prevailing wind of their self-serving rhetoric."

    Not true. I only hold President Obama to the standard he and his economic advisors set for themselves. When selling the stimulus package to the public, the Obama Administration stated that if we do nothing, unemployment would rise to 9%; if the stimulus package passed, it wouldn't exceed 8%.

    Here's a more complete graph than the one I posted earlier.

    Clearly, the stimulus was oversold. And the original $787 billion grew to $864 billion. And what about all those "shovel-ready jobs" that were promised? President Obama recently admitted on the record that there's no such thing. Now that the cat's out of the bag, David Brooks of the New York Times revealed that the President admitted this to him, off the record, a year ago.

    But don't get me wrong. I'm very skeptical about the odds that the Republican establishment can fix all this. The Washington culture of corruption may be too entrenched. But the status quo certainly won't solve our economic problems, IMHO.

    You write that "Obama and his, albeit skittish but Democrat-controlled Congress is our only hope." What little hope I still hold out for getting us out of this mess isn't based on any one individual, or even a political party, but rather on a resolve to run government in a fiscally responsible way.

    Is it possible? When there are so many citizens who look more to the government for their happiness rather than their own personal pursuit, and politicians who are all too wiling to buy that happiness (and with it their own political power) with other peoples' hard earned tax money, it remains doubtful. I'd gladly take a cut in my military retirement pay and forestall or even forego my future social security if everyone else (and I mean everyone else) would tighten their belts, too. What would you be willing to give up to get us back on track?

    Anonymous, you accuse me of drinking the Kool-Aid the Republicans have been serving. I've given you hard numbers. Can you show me a scenario in which continuing with trillion-dollar deficits will bring this country back to economic sanity any time soon, if at all?

    ReplyDelete
  11. However bad Obama may be, Republicans are far worse. They led a stampede into two multi-trillion dollar, decade-long wars that
    (a)have not made the US any safer (the CIA and FBI predicted an upsurge in terrorist attempts against the US as a result);
    (b)have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians who had nothing whatever to do with 9-11, and who are less responsible for what Saddam and Osama did than Americans are for what their elected leaders do.

    Rebublicans, even more than Democrats, favor ever-greater tax-cuts for the rich, on the basis of Reagan's idiotic trickle-down theory of wealth, namely, that making the rich even richer will cause them to create jobs and produce all sorts of great things for everyone. The reality is that inequality in wealth has skyrocketted over the past 30 years, and is now as great as it was during the days of the Robber-Barons. This is not inevitable; it is largely the real intended effect of "stay-in-the-pockets-of-the-rich" economics. The rich don't necessarily use increased wealth for anyone's benefit except their own; they may invest it in land or precious metals or overseas, which produces jobs for no Americans.
    Rebublicans, even more than Democrats, want to see the "defense" budget increased. The US defense budget, all considered, is now $1 trillion per year, which is as much as that of the rest of the globe combined. Most of this money goes to private corporations (to buy weapons, boots for soldiers, oil for military vehices, to contractors to construct buildings, computers, R&D, etc.) These private corporations make immense profits at taxpayer expense; many would go out of business if they weren't breast-fed by the nanny-state.
    This list can be continued forever.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "This list can be continued forever."

    Don't let me stop you; you're obvious on a roll. Just let me know when you're done. I can't guarantee I'll respond in kind, though.

    ReplyDelete
  13. As Sheldon Wolin observed, America has a 1.5 party system (more like a 1.0001 party system); Republicans are the right-wing of the Business/Corporate Party, and Democrats are the left-wing; and the gap between the wings is narrower than ever. The unrivalled idiocy of Republican pundits is on display when they malign Obama as a "socialist." Obama has:
    (a)increased Bush's mammoth defense budget;
    (b)escalated the war in Afghanistan;
    (c)endorsed a "national insurance plan" that is lauded in the business press as a boon for private insurance companies and the drug industry. The plan does not include a single-payer option (as does that of every other Western democracy---apparently Limbaugh, et. al., regard Britain, Israel, etc. as "communist" states.) The plan prohibits the federal government from using its buying-power to negotiate down drug prices (as Canada and the Pentagon do, with the result that they pay 40% less for the same drugs). The plan leaves in place, with new mandatory customers, the parasitical insurance companies, who reap huge profits from Americans' illnesses but do nothing to cure/treat them (doctors do this; insurance companies are parasitical intermediaries), and whose overlapping administrative bureaucracies devour 31% of Americans' healthcare costs, as compared to 3% for other Western countries;
    (d)continued Bush's policy of allowing big bankers, when their risky speculations went awry, to suck at the taxpayers' collective tit while clutching their copies of Hayak and Friedman; but then when these same bankers were found engaging in widespread illegal foreclosures of family homes, Obama refused to support a moratorium on foreclosures;
    (e)fought to retain all of the Bush administration's increased police-state powers, with regard to torture, arrests, detainment, surveillance, etc.
    (f)condoned Bush's wars by refusing to partake in serious criticism of them, despite the fact that they were flagrant violations of international law (to which America is a signatory), and based upon flagrant lies to the American people (WMD, etc.)
    (g)has moved to prosecute the alleged supplier of the Wikileaks Afghan Logs for allowing the American people to know what their elected leaders are doing in their name with their money.
    Yet, according to Republicans and their supporters, this makes Obama an unpatriotic, ultra-left-wing socialist.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED. And neither will racist,homophobic, or misogynistic comments. I do not mind if you disagree, but make your case in a decent manner.