Values voters as explained on Bill Maher:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3qOTRN8dP0
Monday, February 9, 2009
BS Economics of the Right Wing Part 2
Great comment on why tax cuts are bullshit from a great guy I know on another forum. To paraphrase:
Voters: But if tax cuts are so awesome, why are we paying those taxes to begin with?
GOP: To pay for services and infrastructure.
Voters: But you also said we need more infrastructure, how do we pay for this?
GOP: With the tax cuts.
Voters: How does that work?
GOP: Tax cuts stimulate the economy.
Voters: So by giving voters more money, we're going to go out and rebuild bridges and built alternative energy plants ourselves?
GOP: Um.....let me get back to you on that.
The absolute intellectual poverty of this position is amazing to behold.
Then we get to the argument where the Republican says something along the lines of "But the American people want tax cuts." to which Fred Durst had a great response:
"Well, duh. The American people also want drive-through nickel beer night. The American people want to lose weight by eating ice cream. The American people love the Home Shopping Network because it's commercial-free."
What's also prof0undly sad is that the same retarded arguments made against FDR in 1933 (it will cost too much, it won't work, we need to balance the budget, we need tax cuts) are the same arguments being made today by the same assholes.
Voters: But if tax cuts are so awesome, why are we paying those taxes to begin with?
GOP: To pay for services and infrastructure.
Voters: But you also said we need more infrastructure, how do we pay for this?
GOP: With the tax cuts.
Voters: How does that work?
GOP: Tax cuts stimulate the economy.
Voters: So by giving voters more money, we're going to go out and rebuild bridges and built alternative energy plants ourselves?
GOP: Um.....let me get back to you on that.
The absolute intellectual poverty of this position is amazing to behold.
Then we get to the argument where the Republican says something along the lines of "But the American people want tax cuts." to which Fred Durst had a great response:
"Well, duh. The American people also want drive-through nickel beer night. The American people want to lose weight by eating ice cream. The American people love the Home Shopping Network because it's commercial-free."
What's also prof0undly sad is that the same retarded arguments made against FDR in 1933 (it will cost too much, it won't work, we need to balance the budget, we need tax cuts) are the same arguments being made today by the same assholes.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
BS Economic Arguments of the Right Wing
So we finally have a stimulus package passed. Even though it was almost neutered by "centrists".
I guess what disturbs me about the stimulus package is the vast array of BS arguments used by people against it. Even putting aside the obvious untruths of Senator Mitch McConnell bringing up parts of the stimulus package that had already been removed from it (and the obvious hypocricy of Republicans bemoaning the size of the $800 billion stimulus when they themselves were all in favor of $1.3 trillion worth of Bush tax cuts not to mention the cost of the Iraq War), there's a huge amount of insanity masquerading as punditry out there.
First, let's look at the "pork" that was cut from the stimulus package:
1. $40 billion State Fiscal Stabilization and $7.5 billion in State Incentive Grants
Isn't this what states need right now? How does cutting $40 billion from helping states meet payrolls qualify as "pork"?
2. $16 billion School Construction and $3.5 billion in higher education construction.
Let's see. Building schools, creating jobs, and improving education. Obviously no jobs being created there...
3. $5.8 billion Health Prevention Activity
Okay, this one isn't about creating jobs, but it is about saving money. Preventative health is a huge, huge thing we can all do to cut the costs of health care in this country. But of course, to a Republican, this is "pork".
4. $3.5 billion Federal Bldgs Greening
Again, lowering energy costs and creating jobs equals "pork" to crazed conservatives.
5. $2.25 Neighborhood Stabilization (Eliminated)
Neighborhood Stabilization would be all about helping neighborhoods that have a massive number of foreclosed homes but again, who cares about working people, right?
6. $2 billion broadband
How many jobs got cut with this? Maybe the goal of the GOP is to just keep America behind everyone else on the planet.
So Republicans are deranged.
But above and beyond this, check out some of their insane arguments:
1. Anyone can make it in America, why just look at Bill Gates or Chris Garnder.
Um...yeah. Bill Gates dropped out of college, but the college he dropped out of was Harvard. He didn't exactly come from a middle class family, and his family helped him start Microsoft.
Chris Gardner isn't exactly the role model conservatives think he is since they've once again mistaken a movie ("The Pursuit of Happyness") with reality. Unless they think wife-beating, child abandonment, adultery, and drug dealing are family values, which given the current state of the GOP, they actually might believe this. Gardner also used public transportation, collected welfare, and lived in a homeless shelter, but obviously all of this to conservatives is "making it on your own without government intervention".
In reality, most 'rags to riches' stories are complete and utter crap. The idea that one can get ahead through hard work without any help is BS. Conservatives keep listening to all sorts of crazy people from Dave Ramsey to Rush Limbaugh to reinforce this fantasy life, but in fact it's just a fantasy life, as exemplified by Joe the Plumber who believed Barack Obama would prevent him from being able to buy a plumbing business when in fact Joe didn't have the money, the qualifications, or the knowhow to actually buy a plumbing business any more than he had the ability to be a war correspondent. Maybe Joe will understand now that he's actually unemployed, but I doubt it.
2. Less government intervention is great and the free market will correct itself. So said Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek. Um.....fail. Adam Smith, when he invented the idea of the "invisible hand", was speaking about local bartering arrangements, and did not subscribe to the current conservative BS arguments. Adam Smith also had no use for tax cuts for the rich: "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
Friedrich Hayek, the godfather of the Chicago School of Economics, had this to say: "There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, (the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance) should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision."
Compared to the current crop of intellectual prostitutes that make up the conservative movement, Smith and Hayek seem almost socialistic. And besides, in Smith's case, it's a huge stretch to assume that anything the man wrote in 1775 has any relationship at all to today's global multinational economy.
3. Tax cuts are beautiful and wonderous things.
Economic conservatism has now reached it's ultimate dead end. If times are booming, we need a tax cut. If times are bad, we need a tax cut. If we have an $8 trillion deficit, we need a tax cut. Absolutely nothing can dissuade them from the cult that is tax cuts. In reality, they are basically a group of rich assclowns who are greedmongering sociopaths who just want more bling.
Both the Congressional Budget Office and Moody's cite the following chart:
http://www.dailykos.com/images/user/191280/cbo.png
Notice a few things?
Impact on GDP?
- Government spending by feds: Between 2.5 and 1.0. In other words, for every dollar spent, somewhere between $1 and $2.50 gets injected into the economy.
- Transfers to state and local governments for Infrastructure: between 2.5 and 1.0.
- Transfers to state and local governments for non-Infrastructure: between 1.9 and 0.7
- Transfers to persons (i.e. welfare): between 2.2 and 0.8
- Two year tax cuts for lower and middle income people: 1.7 to 0.5
- One year tax cuts for higher income people: 0.5 to 0.1
Tax cuts do not help. They take money OUT of government coffers and do NOT help the economy, particularly if they go to the rich. This is because government spending can be directed at worthy projects, a tax cut let's Ebenezer Scrooge redecorate his office with $1 million, blow $350,000 on strippers, or buy crap from Europe and Asia, thereby NOT helping the American economy.
Although it isn't in the link, the best tax cut is in fact a payroll tax holiday for three months. That would put more money into the economy than any other kind of tax cut, and yet is still woefully inadequate compared to government spending.
Let's also consider that a tax cut is in fact a form of government spending. Either way, through increased spending or decreased revenues, the government is increasing the deficit. It's not like tax cuts are suddenly going to jump start the economy.
And didn't we already do this twice under our 43rd President? Yeah, those tax cuts, which are still in place, really have helped a lot, haven't they? Middle income salaries have declined, the middle class is being squeezed more than ever, unemployment is at it's greatest height since 1974, and so on.
Anyone who seriously suggests tax cuts for the rich or corporations at this stage should be freely laughed at. In fact, it is your responsibility to do so.
4. Let's do nothing because the current crisis isn't really that bad.
Yes, conservatives (at least some of them) actually believe this. Oh, unemployment is only 7.9%. Big deal. Um...guys, if you measured unemployment the way we did in 1980, the unemployment rate is about 13.7%....
Besides, check out this comparison by the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics comparing the 1990, 2001, and current recessions: http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/14898/jobsrecessions_small.jpg
Yeah, let's continue to "do nothing". Are these people serious? Are they on medication? If not, why not?
I guess some people just are incapable of empathy and don't get it until they themselves are hit by it.
5. The New Deal didn't get us out of the Great Depression, World War Two did, and therefore government spending won't work.
This is my all-time favorite current Right Wing meme and it wins for three reasons: the premise is faulty, the source is discredited, and the entire idea is illogical to begin with. Few other places can you see a complete intersection of Right Wing fantasy, lies of omission, sheer ignorance, and downright stupidity.
First, the people promoting this don't understand that the Civilian Conservation Corps during the New Deal created:
Bridges: 46,854
Lodges and museums: 204
Historic structures restored: 3,980
Fire lookout towers: 3,116
Wells and pumphouses: 8,065
Forest roads: 2,500 miles
Roads and truck trails: 7,442 miles
Large Dams: 197
Water supply lines: 5,000 miles
Fences: 27,191 miles
Fish rearing ponds: 4,622
Beaches improved: 3,462
Trees planted: 3 billion
Fires fought: 6.5 million days
The Civil Works Administration contributed:
New roads: 44,000 miles
Road repairs: 200,000 miles
Drainage and irrigation ditches: 9,000 miles
Levees: 2,000 miles
New water mains: 1,000 miles
Sanitary and storm sewers: 2,700 miles
Bridges: 7,000
Pumping stations: 400
Swimming pools: 350
Athletic fields: 4,000
Schools, new or improved: 4,000
Airports, new or improved: 1,000
The WPA contributed:
Urban streets 67,000 miles
New Sidewalks: 24,000 miles
New street lighting: 838 miles
New traffic signs erected: 937,000
Rural roads: 532,000 miles
New bridges: 78,000
Tunnels Vehicular: 26 Pedetrian: 193
Schools New: 5,900 Additions: 2,170 Renovated: 31,300
Libraries New: 151 Additions: 67 Renovated: 856
Hospitals New: 226 Additions: 156 Renovated: 2,168
Office and administrative Buildings: 6,400 New: 1,536 Additions: 323 Renovated: 4,524
Firehouses: 2,700
Jails and prisons: 760
Airports New: 350 Enlarged: 700
I could cite the Public Works Administration, the SEC, the FHA, or just saving the banks alone, but you get the idea. The New Deal improved our lives in ways still felt today. So the premise itself is faulty.
Second, the sources of information are a book by Amity Shales, a right-wing hack discredited here: http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2008104430/amity-meet-eric
and a paper written by two UCLA professors, which has been debunked here: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=learning_from_the_new_deals_mistakes
This didn't stop Fox News from repeating these incorrect assertions or George F. Will from likewise trumpeting them. George F. Will was eviscerated by Paul Krugman here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yAyQV8gOjo
Along with a faulty premise and implausible source material, the actual assertion is illogical and makes no sense.
Think about it: the argument used is that since WW2 brought us out of the Great Depression, the New Deal was therefore a failure, and therefore government spending is a failure.
Really?
How do these idiots think World War Two was paid for, private charity?
The argument is so ludicrous it actually goes like this: since government spending during WW2 got us out of the Great Depression and government spending on the New Deal did not get us out of the Great Depression, government spending is evil and wrong-headed.
Again, are these people serious? I mean, I'd be charitable and say they cannot understand economics, but they also cannot even make logical arguments. Nor do they fact-check their data, nor do they even stop to think: is what I am saying even making sense? Such is the mark of not someone who wants the best for the country, or even their own party, but someone who is either knowingly arguing disingenuously or is so addled they are basically a member of a non-thinking cult.
Either way, dismissing their arguments out-of-hand is a necessity.
I guess what disturbs me about the stimulus package is the vast array of BS arguments used by people against it. Even putting aside the obvious untruths of Senator Mitch McConnell bringing up parts of the stimulus package that had already been removed from it (and the obvious hypocricy of Republicans bemoaning the size of the $800 billion stimulus when they themselves were all in favor of $1.3 trillion worth of Bush tax cuts not to mention the cost of the Iraq War), there's a huge amount of insanity masquerading as punditry out there.
First, let's look at the "pork" that was cut from the stimulus package:
1. $40 billion State Fiscal Stabilization and $7.5 billion in State Incentive Grants
Isn't this what states need right now? How does cutting $40 billion from helping states meet payrolls qualify as "pork"?
2. $16 billion School Construction and $3.5 billion in higher education construction.
Let's see. Building schools, creating jobs, and improving education. Obviously no jobs being created there...
3. $5.8 billion Health Prevention Activity
Okay, this one isn't about creating jobs, but it is about saving money. Preventative health is a huge, huge thing we can all do to cut the costs of health care in this country. But of course, to a Republican, this is "pork".
4. $3.5 billion Federal Bldgs Greening
Again, lowering energy costs and creating jobs equals "pork" to crazed conservatives.
5. $2.25 Neighborhood Stabilization (Eliminated)
Neighborhood Stabilization would be all about helping neighborhoods that have a massive number of foreclosed homes but again, who cares about working people, right?
6. $2 billion broadband
How many jobs got cut with this? Maybe the goal of the GOP is to just keep America behind everyone else on the planet.
So Republicans are deranged.
But above and beyond this, check out some of their insane arguments:
1. Anyone can make it in America, why just look at Bill Gates or Chris Garnder.
Um...yeah. Bill Gates dropped out of college, but the college he dropped out of was Harvard. He didn't exactly come from a middle class family, and his family helped him start Microsoft.
Chris Gardner isn't exactly the role model conservatives think he is since they've once again mistaken a movie ("The Pursuit of Happyness") with reality. Unless they think wife-beating, child abandonment, adultery, and drug dealing are family values, which given the current state of the GOP, they actually might believe this. Gardner also used public transportation, collected welfare, and lived in a homeless shelter, but obviously all of this to conservatives is "making it on your own without government intervention".
In reality, most 'rags to riches' stories are complete and utter crap. The idea that one can get ahead through hard work without any help is BS. Conservatives keep listening to all sorts of crazy people from Dave Ramsey to Rush Limbaugh to reinforce this fantasy life, but in fact it's just a fantasy life, as exemplified by Joe the Plumber who believed Barack Obama would prevent him from being able to buy a plumbing business when in fact Joe didn't have the money, the qualifications, or the knowhow to actually buy a plumbing business any more than he had the ability to be a war correspondent. Maybe Joe will understand now that he's actually unemployed, but I doubt it.
2. Less government intervention is great and the free market will correct itself. So said Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek. Um.....fail. Adam Smith, when he invented the idea of the "invisible hand", was speaking about local bartering arrangements, and did not subscribe to the current conservative BS arguments. Adam Smith also had no use for tax cuts for the rich: "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
Friedrich Hayek, the godfather of the Chicago School of Economics, had this to say: "There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, (the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance) should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision."
Compared to the current crop of intellectual prostitutes that make up the conservative movement, Smith and Hayek seem almost socialistic. And besides, in Smith's case, it's a huge stretch to assume that anything the man wrote in 1775 has any relationship at all to today's global multinational economy.
3. Tax cuts are beautiful and wonderous things.
Economic conservatism has now reached it's ultimate dead end. If times are booming, we need a tax cut. If times are bad, we need a tax cut. If we have an $8 trillion deficit, we need a tax cut. Absolutely nothing can dissuade them from the cult that is tax cuts. In reality, they are basically a group of rich assclowns who are greedmongering sociopaths who just want more bling.
Both the Congressional Budget Office and Moody's cite the following chart:
http://www.dailykos.com/images/user/191280/cbo.png
Notice a few things?
Impact on GDP?
- Government spending by feds: Between 2.5 and 1.0. In other words, for every dollar spent, somewhere between $1 and $2.50 gets injected into the economy.
- Transfers to state and local governments for Infrastructure: between 2.5 and 1.0.
- Transfers to state and local governments for non-Infrastructure: between 1.9 and 0.7
- Transfers to persons (i.e. welfare): between 2.2 and 0.8
- Two year tax cuts for lower and middle income people: 1.7 to 0.5
- One year tax cuts for higher income people: 0.5 to 0.1
Tax cuts do not help. They take money OUT of government coffers and do NOT help the economy, particularly if they go to the rich. This is because government spending can be directed at worthy projects, a tax cut let's Ebenezer Scrooge redecorate his office with $1 million, blow $350,000 on strippers, or buy crap from Europe and Asia, thereby NOT helping the American economy.
Although it isn't in the link, the best tax cut is in fact a payroll tax holiday for three months. That would put more money into the economy than any other kind of tax cut, and yet is still woefully inadequate compared to government spending.
Let's also consider that a tax cut is in fact a form of government spending. Either way, through increased spending or decreased revenues, the government is increasing the deficit. It's not like tax cuts are suddenly going to jump start the economy.
And didn't we already do this twice under our 43rd President? Yeah, those tax cuts, which are still in place, really have helped a lot, haven't they? Middle income salaries have declined, the middle class is being squeezed more than ever, unemployment is at it's greatest height since 1974, and so on.
Anyone who seriously suggests tax cuts for the rich or corporations at this stage should be freely laughed at. In fact, it is your responsibility to do so.
4. Let's do nothing because the current crisis isn't really that bad.
Yes, conservatives (at least some of them) actually believe this. Oh, unemployment is only 7.9%. Big deal. Um...guys, if you measured unemployment the way we did in 1980, the unemployment rate is about 13.7%....
Besides, check out this comparison by the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics comparing the 1990, 2001, and current recessions: http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/14898/jobsrecessions_small.jpg
Yeah, let's continue to "do nothing". Are these people serious? Are they on medication? If not, why not?
I guess some people just are incapable of empathy and don't get it until they themselves are hit by it.
5. The New Deal didn't get us out of the Great Depression, World War Two did, and therefore government spending won't work.
This is my all-time favorite current Right Wing meme and it wins for three reasons: the premise is faulty, the source is discredited, and the entire idea is illogical to begin with. Few other places can you see a complete intersection of Right Wing fantasy, lies of omission, sheer ignorance, and downright stupidity.
First, the people promoting this don't understand that the Civilian Conservation Corps during the New Deal created:
Bridges: 46,854
Lodges and museums: 204
Historic structures restored: 3,980
Fire lookout towers: 3,116
Wells and pumphouses: 8,065
Forest roads: 2,500 miles
Roads and truck trails: 7,442 miles
Large Dams: 197
Water supply lines: 5,000 miles
Fences: 27,191 miles
Fish rearing ponds: 4,622
Beaches improved: 3,462
Trees planted: 3 billion
Fires fought: 6.5 million days
The Civil Works Administration contributed:
New roads: 44,000 miles
Road repairs: 200,000 miles
Drainage and irrigation ditches: 9,000 miles
Levees: 2,000 miles
New water mains: 1,000 miles
Sanitary and storm sewers: 2,700 miles
Bridges: 7,000
Pumping stations: 400
Swimming pools: 350
Athletic fields: 4,000
Schools, new or improved: 4,000
Airports, new or improved: 1,000
The WPA contributed:
Urban streets 67,000 miles
New Sidewalks: 24,000 miles
New street lighting: 838 miles
New traffic signs erected: 937,000
Rural roads: 532,000 miles
New bridges: 78,000
Tunnels Vehicular: 26 Pedetrian: 193
Schools New: 5,900 Additions: 2,170 Renovated: 31,300
Libraries New: 151 Additions: 67 Renovated: 856
Hospitals New: 226 Additions: 156 Renovated: 2,168
Office and administrative Buildings: 6,400 New: 1,536 Additions: 323 Renovated: 4,524
Firehouses: 2,700
Jails and prisons: 760
Airports New: 350 Enlarged: 700
I could cite the Public Works Administration, the SEC, the FHA, or just saving the banks alone, but you get the idea. The New Deal improved our lives in ways still felt today. So the premise itself is faulty.
Second, the sources of information are a book by Amity Shales, a right-wing hack discredited here: http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2008104430/amity-meet-eric
and a paper written by two UCLA professors, which has been debunked here: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=learning_from_the_new_deals_mistakes
This didn't stop Fox News from repeating these incorrect assertions or George F. Will from likewise trumpeting them. George F. Will was eviscerated by Paul Krugman here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yAyQV8gOjo
Along with a faulty premise and implausible source material, the actual assertion is illogical and makes no sense.
Think about it: the argument used is that since WW2 brought us out of the Great Depression, the New Deal was therefore a failure, and therefore government spending is a failure.
Really?
How do these idiots think World War Two was paid for, private charity?
The argument is so ludicrous it actually goes like this: since government spending during WW2 got us out of the Great Depression and government spending on the New Deal did not get us out of the Great Depression, government spending is evil and wrong-headed.
Again, are these people serious? I mean, I'd be charitable and say they cannot understand economics, but they also cannot even make logical arguments. Nor do they fact-check their data, nor do they even stop to think: is what I am saying even making sense? Such is the mark of not someone who wants the best for the country, or even their own party, but someone who is either knowingly arguing disingenuously or is so addled they are basically a member of a non-thinking cult.
Either way, dismissing their arguments out-of-hand is a necessity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
