Search This Blog

Sunday, October 31, 2010

Unions want your money and Spendocrats agree

Thomas Semesky reminded me of this video clip -





So teachers support Democrats? Of course their union does because it is Republicans and conservatives and parents that want vouchers and charter schools, two systems proven to work but systems hated by the NEA. Of course they don't want parents to have any choices or else the worst teachers might be out of a job!

Businesses and the Chamber of Commerce support Republicans because free enterprise provides jobs and helps lift the economy.

Union leaders support Democrats even when their membership does not. They hope that the Democrats will eliminate secret balloting. How communist is that?  Plus the more government employees, the bigger the tax bite on everyone else.   Unions want you to support them!


The more Democratic the government, the more spending.  Thanks to Paula Priesse!

Oh yes, and lest we forget...where are the jobs?!

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Businesses and the Chamber of Commerce support Republicans because free enterprise provides jobs and helps lift the economy."

Like the Bush years, right? Did you know they took gullible out of the dictionary?

radar said...

So did they replace "gullible" with "Democrats?"

Bush kowtowed to spenders in his last two years but compared to the Obama Administration life under Bush was paradise. He also bought the "stimulus" snake oil that both Obama and McCain drank. By the time of the Presidential election the choices seemed to come down to "Dumb and Dumber." Dumber won.

Businesses are reeling under Obama, the administration has halted oil drilling and put a blockade in front of atomic energy plants. The only question is whether they are putting the economy into a depression out of stupidity or intentionally?

Anonymous said...

"Bush kowtowed to spenders in his last two years"

As usual, a quick trip to google shows you're just making stuff up as you go along with no regard for truth. Just google "federal spending under Bush" and take your pick. If Bush kowtowed to spenders, then he certainly did more of that in the years prior to Democrats gaining control of congress. Sorry, but that's a simple fact.

Once again you display your mental habit of picking an outcome and a side (in this case "Democrats evil!") and then selecting the facts, instead of examining the facts and then coming to a conclusion. Oh and you think everyone else must be doing the same thing. Not the case.

highboy said...

anonymous is ignoring the fact that this mess we currently are dwelling in happens to be under a completely democrat controlled government so the whole republican vs. democrat debate is pretty much moot.

Anonymous said...

anonymous is not ignoring that fact but is responding to Radar's incorrect statement, which highboy is ignoring.

Aside from that, your logic doesn't hold up at all. The Rep vs. Dem debate is moot? What are you smoking? If things were hunky-dory every time Reps were in office and in the toilet every time Dems were in office, you might have a semblance of a point, but that's hardly the case, is it?

Reps had the run of the place for six years and the presidency for another two years after that, ran up record deficits (and no, not while the Dems had congress, as Radar insinuated) and had the decade with the LOWEST job growth in who knows how long. But now you think they have the answers? What exactly has changed in the policies they're proposing?

Anonymous said...

Radar, any response to the fact that your claim was demonstrably wrong and that it was Reps, not Dems, who racked up the record deficits under Bush?

"The only question is whether they are putting the economy into a depression out of stupidity or intentionally?"

You are aware that the depression was well underway when Bush was in office, right? Now was that out of stupidity or intentionally?

highboy said...

Sorry anonymous, your argument doesn't fly. The arrival of the deficit is just a smokescreen for what actually caused it. Its been coming for nearly 30 years now, not in the past 8-10. Obama and the Dems had a chance to prove to everyone they had what it took to bring "change" and turn it around, and all they've done is make it worse. And point of fact, Obama has spent more money in the shortest amount of time than any president in history.

As for repubs vs. dems...who said I'm defending Republicans? I'm simply pointing out that the pissing contest between the two is moot, because in the past 30 years they've both failed miserably. They've both had their crack at total control and f d it up.

Anonymous said...

"Sorry anonymous, your argument doesn't fly. The arrival of the deficit is just a smokescreen for what actually caused it."

Okay, what caused the deficit? No smokescreen, just a plain answer will do.

"Its been coming for nearly 30 years now, not in the past 8-10. Obama and the Dems had a chance to prove to everyone they had what it took to bring "change" and turn it around, and all they've done is make it worse."

So Obama and the Dems were supposed to turn around something that has been coming for nearly 30 years in one year, and if they didn't do that, they're a failure, is that what you're saying? Please elaborate, and while you're at it, please explain exactly what they did wrong and how, say, McCain/Palin (or anyone, for that matter) could have turned this situation around on a dime.

"And point of fact, Obama has spent more money in the shortest amount of time than any president in history."

In large part due to an urgently needed economic stimulus package that had to be spent as quickly as possible to be effective. And which economists agree was needed.

You have what problem with this exactly?

"As for repubs vs. dems...who said I'm defending Republicans?"

It seemed implied to me in the paragraph in which you made that statement.

"I'm simply pointing out that the pissing contest between the two is moot, because in the past 30 years they've both failed miserably. They've both had their crack at total control and f d it up."

From a broad perspective, you have a point there, though I'm sure we'd disagree on the reasons.

highboy said...

"Okay, what caused the deficit? No smokescreen, just a plain answer will do."

Increased government spending and socialization over the past 3-40 years.

"Please elaborate, and while you're at it, please explain exactly what they did wrong and how, say, McCain/Palin (or anyone, for that matter) could have turned this situation around on a dime."

1. they spent billions of dollars we don't have on a stimulus package that has yet to yield one positive result.
2. mccain or palin wouldn't have turned it around, they would have spent more money.

"In large part due to an urgently needed economic stimulus package that had to be spent as quickly as possible to be effective. And which economists agree was needed."

Name one economist not named Paul Krugman and you would have a smidgen of a point here, not to mention the stimulus package was an utter failure and has yet to yield positive results. The "trust us, we lost lots of jobs but we would have lost more" argument is silly and childish and has not one verifiable fact to validate it.

The socialist policies you would have your government enforce haven't worked anywhere.

radar said...

If anyone believes that Bush caused the record deficits they are either remarkably deficient in math or lying to avoid the truth. The American People voted to overturn the Obamanation in 2010 and you can expect more of the same in 2012 unless Obama does a 180 degree turn and begins trying to undo some of the damage he has inflicted on the economy.

Obamacare has only begun to kill off the medical system and hopefully most states will refuse to go along and stand on Constitutional grounds against the bill.

We need our new Senators and Reps to pressure Obama to allow drilling and atomic power plants so we can be creating more power and provide more jobs.

We need some kind of restraint on the crazy Obama spending that has far surpassed anything Bush or Clinton ever did.

We need the President to quit taking vacations and cut down on the ridiculous staff and the multiple czars.

We need all bills posted online and all budgets posted online so there is transparency in government.

We need Democrats to turn away from socialism and join the normal folks and defund and repeal Obamacare and put political pressure on the White House to do the right thing for a change. An idiot with a blindfold and a dartboard could make better choices than Barack Obama.

Anonymous said...

"Increased government spending and socialization over the past 3-40 years. "

Interesting. For some reason, the deficit went up under Reagan and Bush Sr., down under Clinton, back up under Bush Jr. This is due to what socialization exactly?

"1. they spent billions of dollars we don't have on a stimulus package that has yet to yield one positive result. "

On what do you base your assertion that it didn't yield any positive result?

"2. mccain or palin wouldn't have turned it around, they would have spent more money."

If you say so.

"Name one economist not named Paul Krugman and you would have a smidgen of a point here,"

Martin Feldstein, Daron Acemo─člu, National Economic Council director Larry Summers, Joseph Stiglitz, Kenneth Arrow, Lawrence R. Klein, Eric Maskin, Daniel McFadden, Paul Samuelson and Robert Solow. About 200 of them here. Oh, sorry, you just asked for one.

"not to mention the stimulus package was an utter failure and has yet to yield positive results. The "trust us, we lost lots of jobs but we would have lost more" argument is silly and childish and has not one verifiable fact to validate it."

Ah, gratuitous insults. Doesn't say much for your confidence in your position. Re. your assertion that it didn't yield a single positive result, the Congressional Budget Office disagrees with you:

"Increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million, and
Increased the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs by 2.0 million to 4.8 million compared with what those amounts would have been otherwise."

There's an interesting underlying point to your unfounded claim that the stimulus had no effect. 40% of the stimulus was tax cuts. Are you then also claiming that tax cuts have no effect on stimulating the economy?

"The socialist policies you would have your government enforce haven't worked anywhere."

And which "socialist policies" do you imagine those to be?

Anonymous said...

"If anyone believes that Bush caused the record deficits they are either remarkably deficient in math or lying to avoid the truth."

Bush and an entirely Republican Congress did cause record deficits, as was clearly shown here. On the contrary, to claim otherwise you'd have to be deficient in math or lying.

"The American People voted to overturn the Obamanation in 2010 and you can expect more of the same in 2012 unless Obama does a 180 degree turn and begins trying to undo some of the damage he has inflicted on the economy."

Not on the economy, the deficit. He stimulated the economy at the expense of the deficit.

But what do you propose should be done to "undo the damage"?

"Obamacare has only begun to kill off the medical system and hopefully most states will refuse to go along and stand on Constitutional grounds against the bill."

What Constitutional grounds?

"We need our new Senators and Reps to pressure Obama to allow drilling and atomic power plants so we can be creating more power and provide more jobs."

Oh, is that what we need Reps to pressure Obama to do?

Re. oil drilling: Obama did open new areas to offshore drilling, much to the dismay of his supporters. He tried to ban it in response to the Deepshore Horizon disaster, but that was banned by the courts.

Re. nuclear power: "President Obama outlined a simple objective: Jump start nuclear power plant construction in the U.S., which hasn’t built a new plant in three decades."

"The president touched on his attempt to reach out to Republicans with offers of expanding offshore drilling and the nuclear loan guarantee program."

So, uh, it looks like Obama beat you to the punch on those two.

"We need some kind of restraint on the crazy Obama spending that has far surpassed anything Bush or Clinton ever did."

The bulk of it was in the nature of an economic stimulus, which unfortunately was necessary after the Reps had driven the economy into a ditch - almost a decade of horrendous job growth, the worst such period since 1945, under Rep rule, as well as a recession that started in 2007.

"We need the President to quit taking vacations"

Fact check: "Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush spent more time on "vacation" during their first year than President Obama did. Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton spent less time on "vacation.""

"and cut down on the ridiculous staff and the multiple czars."

I doubt it would really make any kind of dent in the federal budget, and frankly if the president thinks delegation is warranted, then that's his prerogative.

"We need all bills posted online and all budgets posted online so there is transparency in government."

Agreed. Obama wanted that too, but it didn't happen in practice. Hope the Reps now do it. Rumor has it it's to the detriment of the party in the majority, which is why the party in the majority tends to drag their heels on this issue. We'll see what happens.

highboy said...

"Interesting. For some reason, the deficit went up under Reagan and Bush Sr., down under Clinton, back up under Bush Jr. This is due to what socialization exactly?"

Factually incorrect. Clinton's first term, which saw a completely Democrat controlled Congress, saw huge recession. Funny though how you don't think any of the deficits had anything to do with huge ridiculous spending under Carter though. Nothing you say can be taken seriously now.

"On what do you base your assertion that it didn't yield any positive result?"

Unemployment at all time highs, no job creation, more lost jobs, and the largest and quickest increase in deficit spending ever, just to name a few.

I also find it hilarious you posted a link to a petition with signatures of Nobel Prize winners as your list of economists.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/26/news/economy/NABE_survey/

"the Congressional Budget Office disagrees with you:"

what a shocker. Just like you bought Obama's "trust me, I saved millions of jobs" hook line and sinker as well.

"Not on the economy, the deficit. He stimulated the economy at the expense of the deficit."

yet people still keep losing jobs, unemployment hasn't gone down, and now we have the largest estimated deficit that we'll be passing along for years to come.

"What Constitutional grounds?"

the grounds that the federal government can't force you to buy a product.

"The bulk of it was in the nature of an economic stimulus, which unfortunately was necessary after the Reps had driven the economy into a ditch -"

nice talking points but again, factually incorrect. The only argument libs like you have is to point out who was in charge when negative aspects of the economy take effect, and then dismiss the overwhelming socialist spending that has been going on since the early 70s as if its some how of no consequence.

By the way, if credibility means anything to anybody, the "Factcheck" site is one of the most dishonest on the web.

Don't get me wrong anonymous, I'm not defending Republicans at all. They are as much to blame as anybody for this mess. I'm simply saying blaming this all on the Republicans simply because the numbers hit under their watch is as naive as me blaming the 92' recession all on dems because the numbers hit on their watch. Both parties utterly failed, though as you say, we'd disagree on the reasons.

Anonymous said...

"Check out the link posted earlier" - the link was missing, sorry. It's this one (also linked upthread.

Anonymous said...

Arg, previous post just disappeared. Will try to re-post.

Anonymous said...

"Factually incorrect. Clinton's first term, which saw a completely Democrat controlled Congress, saw huge recession."

Factually incorrect. There was a recession in the early 1990s, but it ended in March 91. There's no conceivable way you could hang that around Clinton's neck, much as you would like to. Nor, at 1.4%, was it a "huge" recession - on the contrary, it was the third mildest since the Great Depression.

"Funny though how you don't think any of the deficits had anything to do with huge ridiculous spending under Carter though."

Funny that you didn't bother checking your facts on this. Check out the link posted earlier and see how your claim about "huge ridiculous spending under Carter" holds up. Hint: it doesn't. Carter's spending was dwarfed by Reagan and Bush Sr's, which was double and triple that of Carter. Simple facts, check it out for yourself.

Not that I expect you to acknowledge that, of course.

"Nothing you say can be taken seriously now."

What I say happens to line up with verifiable fact. What you say didn't. Your attempt at trashtalk doesn't make up for the facts not being on your side.

Anonymous said...

"Unemployment at all time highs,"

Not incompatible with the stimulus having had a positive effect.

"no job creation,"

I note you haven't been able to counter the CBO's claim with anything subtantive whatsoever. The fact that jobs were created is verifiable. Projects were funded, people worked, people got paid, people put that money back into the economy.

"more lost jobs,"

Yes, jobs are getting lost, but it's not necessarily tied to the things you mention here, and it may well be outside the government's control. Things like globalization and outsourcing. Funny how at times like this people like you suddenly blame the government, as if they're supposed to be in charge of a free economy. So now you want a nanny state? Okay then.

Anonymous said...

"and the largest and quickest increase in deficit spending ever, just to name a few."

Which part of "stimulated the economy at the expense of the deficit" didn't you understand?

"I also find it hilarious you posted a link to a petition with signatures of Nobel Prize winners as your list of economists."

You seem to have a low threshold for perceiving hilarity. This is funny why exactly?

You insinuated that no economists other than Paul Krugman claimed the stimulus would stimulate the economy. I gave you a list of a couple of hundred. Now your only response is that they're Nobel Prize winners (must be real idiots, huh?) and wave about a poll of other economists, in which two thirds claim the stimulus had no effect. I guess that means that a third claimed that the stimulus had an effect. And the poll is part of a report that talks about how the economy is improving, though I don't know if you looked into the poll in question that far. I suspect you stopped reading at the headline.

"what a shocker. Just like you bought Obama's "trust me, I saved millions of jobs" hook line and sinker as well."

What a shocker: you have no comeback. Oh well. Not surprising though.

Anonymous said...

"yet people still keep losing jobs, unemployment hasn't gone down, and now we have the largest estimated deficit that we'll be passing along for years to come. "

Okay, you don't seem able to grasp the notion that even though jobs were created/saved, unemployment can still go up because of more powerful factors having an impact, and you skirt around or simply ignore any actual facts pointed out to you.

"the grounds that the federal government can't force you to buy a product"

We'll see what the courts say, if it comes to that.

"The bulk of it was in the nature of an economic stimulus, which unfortunately was necessary after the Reps had driven the economy into a ditch -"

"nice talking points but again, factually incorrect."

Factually incorrect how? Again, no comeback. That's just limp.

Anonymous said...

"The only argument libs like you have is to point out who was in charge when negative aspects of the economy take effect,"

Seems to me that that's exactly what you and your ilk are doing with Obama and the Dems right now. But you're okay with that, right? Just checking.

What I was doing was not pointing out who was in charge when negative aspects of the economy take effect, but pointing out accurately (unlike your good self) who was in charge when spending happened. Which, if you actually do care to check the facts, goes completely counter to the silly "Spendocrat" myth.

"and then dismiss the overwhelming socialist spending that has been going on since the early 70s as if its some how of no consequence."

Again, check the facts. If you want to accuse both parties of "overwhelming socialist spending", keep in mind that Reagan and Bush Sr. doubled and almost tripled Carter's supposedly "ridiculous" spending, Clinton reduced the rate of growth of the deficit, eventually balancing the budget, and Bush Jr. speeded up the rate of growth again. That's simple verifiable fact that you can check out yourself at this link.

Anonymous said...

"By the way, if credibility means anything to anybody, the "Factcheck" site is one of the most dishonest on the web."

Again, no comeback. This is uncanny. So did you have a problem with their facts re. Obama's holidays or didn't you? Kinda lazy just to discredit the messenger, without any backup even. I take it then that you can't dispute that Obama took less holidays than Reagan and the two Bushes.

"Don't get me wrong anonymous, I'm not defending Republicans at all."

Oh no, of course not. It's just painfully obvious that your disinformation is rather, shall we say, one-sided.

"They are as much to blame as anybody for this mess."

So you would agree with the statement that they're not the ones to get us out of this mess at this point?

"I'm simply saying blaming this all on the Republicans simply because the numbers hit under their watch"

So you wouldn't blame the Dems because the numbers are hitting under their watch? Good to know. I may hold you to that.

Anonymous said...

"is as naive as me blaming the 92' recession all on dems because the numbers hit on their watch."

Blaming that on the Dems would be extraordinarily naive, seeing as that recession ended in March '91, a mere two months after Clinton took office and had not proposed any budget. So those numbers in effect didn't happen on Clinton's watch. What did happen on Clinton's watch is the longest period of sustained economic growth in US history. But I understand if you don't want to "blame" (i.e. credit) Clinton for that.

"Both parties utterly failed, though as you say, we'd disagree on the reasons."

Both parties (or at least significant chunks of them) being in the pockets of corporations would perhaps be a factor we could agree on. Or not?

And now there's this "Tea Party", coming in to reduce spending etc. I suspect they're in for a bit of a reality check once they actually have to figure out what to cut. It's easy to say stuff like that on the campaign trail, not so easy to actually find what to cut.

Anonymous said...

"March '91, a mere two months after Clinton took office"

Correction: almost two years before Clinton took office. Which would make your point even more nonsensical.

Anonymous said...

Nice to see that Radar and Highboy didn't have any comebacks once the lies they were spreading (unwittingly or not) were exposed.