Any Questions Now?

For some reason, there continues to be a discussion about whether or not conservative, free-market principles are a good thing for the economy. Countless thousands of words from some of the greatest minds in the world have explained the premise over and over again, but somehow the liberals just don’t seem to get it. It’s frustrating. But my friend, Chrissy, over at Polination, has cut through the rhetoric with one of her awesome graphics that describes the reality clearly enough for even a caveman liberal to understand:

This graph provides a very clear demonstration of the difference between Republican and Democrat economic policies. Republicans trust the free market. Democrats trust big government.

Despite an economic bubble burst AND a major terror attack on our own soil, Bush proposed and a Republican majority Congress passed tax cuts for everyone. This action was followed immediately by an increase in jobs.

Then Democrats took over the majority in Washington and the housing bubble burst. No major terror attack or worry if we will go to war or not. In fact, by 2008, when the downturn in the economy really got rolling, the war in Iraq was mostly over and, despite what the media and Democrats were blatting, we had won.

So what do Democrats do with their economic downturn? They tax, borrow and spend of course. They instituted not one, but two of their signature fixes … a huge bail-out, followed by an even huger stimulus package. Their putative fixes did not just fail to help; they actually made the problem a whole lot worse.

Isn’t it time we put those Big Government Obama Democrats into the back seat where they belong and return leadership to the people whose free market methods have PROVEN they can produce JOBS?

H/T to Chrissythehyphenated at Polination. Be sure and check out the site – there’s much more like this!

7 thoughts on “Any Questions Now?

  1. When the talking heads for the Democrats keep arguing against going back to the “failed policies” of the past, I keep thinking that below 5% unemployment was a pretty good result for such failed policies compared to today’s.

  2. You are using facts awfully selectively. Note that even in the best Bush year, percentage of employment never caught up to 1998. Overall, job growth during the Bush years was the lowest since the Eisenhower administration.

    TARP passed when Bush was president; three-fourths of the Senate voted for it, and 91 House Republicans voted for it. You can’t just blame Democrats for it.

    Most studies show that the stimulus did, in fact, help employment. In one survey, 80 percent of economists, including advisers to both Republican and Democratic administrations, said it had helped.

    Meanwhile, the Obama administration has lowered taxes (over Republican opposition), not raised them, and growth in government spending has been slower during the Obama years than in any presidency since Truman’s.

    Finally, it’s just crazy to say that liberals don’t believe in free markets. Of course they do. They just don’t believe in unregulated markets. The opposite of market regulation isn’t socialism, it’s anarchy.

  3. David –

    You are to be commended for your incredible ability to extrapolate conclusions not relevant to the point at issue. But to continue the discussion: Please provide the links to support your claims that 80% of economists agreed that the stimulus spending helped employment. We all know it was spent to increase GOVERNMENT employment – short term, so unless your source has something more substantive to your point, let’s not go there. As to Obama cutting taxes more than Bush – again let me see the numbers – preferably before you put them through the spin cycle.

  4. Crisp wrote; “In one survey, 80 percent of economists, including advisers to both Republican and Democratic administrations, said it had helped.”

    Was that help union employees and government employees? Or was that temporary employees whose jobs have already disappeared. Making a broad statement like that leaves out a lot of pertinent information. After all it could mean that it helped Fisker keep employees or helped Solyndra keep employees. Please show us how many employees were hired (permanent jobs) and the stimulus cost per employee job.

    Crisp wrote; “Meanwhile, the Obama administration has lowered taxes (over Republican opposition),…”

    Now are you talking about extending the Bush tax cuts when you say lowered taxes. Also progressives are prone to call not increasing taxes a tax cut. Also I think progressives are again trying to take credit for the wars ending and the phase out of spending on the wars as a cut in spending. When this cut was already anticipated and planed for by the Bush administration. I want examples for such a wild statement. Also you are forgetting Obamacare. Or are you going to blame those huge tax increases on our next President Romney? If you give five dollars with one hand and take fifty with the other it is not a tax cut, it is diversion of attention while theft is committed. This sounds more like DNC talking points than facts.

    Crisp wrote; “…(G)rowth in government spending has been slower during the Obama years than in any presidency since Truman’s.”

    Government hiring of IRS agents alone makes me question this statement. Please show us how and where. I think this relates back to the hilarious article from a ‘progressive’ who blamed everything on Bush. He also blamed tax increases on Bush that were clearly Obama’s. The national debt alone makes me think this is wild propagandist statement.

    Crisp wrote; “The opposite of market regulation isn’t socialism, it’s anarchy.”

    And this proves the point of your socialism. It is not anarchy, it is self regulation. Why are progressives always trying to regulate everything. From baby formula, soft drink sizes to toilet flush size. That over regulation is the start of socialism. Because at it’s heart socialism is the government controlling the people because the government thinks they are too stupid to regulate themselves. Progressives start out with a (very) few regulations and then keep thinking more and more regulations will fix everything and instead make everything much worse.

  5. You can find the survey of economists here: http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_cw5O9LNJL1oz4Xi

    Information about spending under Obama is here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

    I don’t believe I said that Obama cut taxes more than Bush. But about a third of the stimulus was tax cuts, and payroll taxes remain below Bush levels. I know; I have to do payroll. And that’s all in addition to extending the Bush tax cuts.

    Finally, government regulation is at the heart of every modern economy, from printing currency to insuring bank deposits to building infrastructure and transportation to maintaining an extensive court system to settle (mostly economic) disputes. That isn’t being progressive; it’s being rational.

  6. Crisp wrote; “Most studies show that the stimulus did, in fact, help employment.” then he wrote; “You can find the survey of economists here:”

    First it was most studies, but now it is one group of professors. Also this group of economists failed to anticipate the sub prime mortgage fiasco. I question not only their bias but their abilities.

    These experts also believe that raising taxes on 1% will increase federal revenues.
    http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_eM6AbvcBTI8MuvG

    But let us take a look at some of their other beliefs;

    For instance, school vouchers: http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_8IKI1pT3ZYKvzOA

    And Too Big Too Fail: http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-econom…gBycSk9IdTStso

    And free trade: http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-econom…dfr9yjnDcLh17m

    And opposition to rent controls: http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-econom…upyzeUpI73V5k0

    And to the harm caused by employer provided health care breaks: http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-econom…Gw7RTJefXPg0o4

    You did also read where they agree the Medicare and Medicaid require cuts and increases in taxes on those making less than $250,000.
    http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_5hFa4fmjPDXbnww

    You might also be interested to read that they believe the policies of letting the Bush tax cuts expire and Medicaid payments to doctor cuts and cutting the military budget will send us over a fiscal cliff. The direction the Democrats are taking us will be a failure.
    http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_0JS6RmHJZmkpEws

    So basically you have gone from a majority of experts to one group of experts who are teachers. And let us not forget the most important part, this is their OPINION it is an OPINION poll. NO evidence is given in any form whatsoever. And we all know about opinions and….

    And yet the unemployment rate went up to 8.3% again today. Somehow I don’t think Obama helped unemployment.

    For a dissenting view;
    http://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/dupor/arra10_may11.pdf

    And let us not forget it was President Bush who started the stimulus.

    Crisp wrote; Growth in spending being less under President Obama.

    Finally Rick (GOP are Nazi’s) Unger is liberal. He admits it. His writing is liberal ideology. And he is using the same PROVEN false premises that Rex Nutting used. Using another liberal writing and using false numbers provided by another liberal using false numbers does not make the numbers less wrong.

    And lastly Crisp wrote; “Finally, government regulation is at the heart of every modern economy, from printing currency to insuring bank deposits to building infrastructure and transportation to maintaining an extensive court system to settle (mostly economic) disputes. That isn’t being progressive; it’s being rational.”

    Massive government spending us over a financial cliff is not rational. Yes we all need government, just not the massive deficient spending one we have now. Getting rid of them would be rational.

    p.s. I notice you only mentioned the courts for economic disputes and not the protection of the people by incarceration of those who violate our laws. I find this an interesting view into your head.

  7. I wasn’t making that up about studies. Of nine studies examined by Ezra Klein, loki mentions one of only two that concluded the stimulus didn’t work. All the others ascribe at least some level of success to it. Analysis and links are all at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/did-the-stimulus-work-a-review-of-the-nine-best-studies-on-the-subject/2011/08/16/gIQAThbibJ_blog.html

    Loki also asserts that Unger’s numbers are wrong, apparently because Unger is a liberal. Loki provides no evidence.

    The number of civil cases has been rapidly increasing and may have surpassed the number of criminal cases in the judicial system. The large majority of these are in some way related to business and the economy: contract disputes, property disputes, wrongful termination, small claims, etc. Even criminal cases often are in some way related to the economy (fraud, embezzlement, shoplifting, etc.).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>