Sunday, November 7, 2010

What a strange political world. Or is it?

Is it so strange for the Republican Party to win an election based on the poverty and joblessness they created? Is it also strange that the “massive liberal spending spree” we’ve heard so much about was a public repudiation of the stimulus package, a state saving bailout that spared the U.S. economy from spinning into a second Great Depression? Rep. Paul Ryan explains:

Which leads us to the following commentary by Motley Cow. What will the new Republican America look like?

What does Conservative change look like? It’s familiar to every American. It’s the kind of Reaganomics-driven change that limited the average salary increase among middle class workers to less than 1 percent between 1980 and 2008, while simultaneously cutting taxes and government regulations in a way that launched the income of the wealthiest 5 percent into the orbit.

Tuesday’s choice for the comfortably nonthreatening 1 percent improvement stands in stark contrast to the, apparently frightening, 30 years of Dark Ages between 1950 and 1980, when the average worker’s salary rose 74.6 percent. Voters acted just in time too, for had this uncontrolled pattern of income growth for regular Americans continued through 2008, the average income of the bottom 90 percent of Americans would have been 68 percent higher than it is today: a disturbing $406 a week for the typical family.

As this column has pointed out before, Republicans can take pride in never having to pay for anything. Democrats, on the other hand, can be safely saddled with the elitist albatross of having never once increased national debt as a percentage of GDP, not since FDR.

Just like those friends of yours who don’t owe anything on their credit cards. The credit card industry calls people like that “deadbeats.” Conservatives call people like that “liberals.”

See the whole commentary at MotleyCow.
One more note, just scored by PolitiFact, about Ryan's claim Obama increased spending 84 percent:
Outside experts (say the numbers) do show a big jump -- from $434 billion in 2008 to $537 billion in 2010. But that’s a 24 percent increase, not the 84 percent claimed by Ryan and his colleagues.

Ryan’s calculations also include another number -- the discretionary spending portion of the economic stimulus package. That adds another $259 million to the total, which brings it to $797 billion (with rounding) and the 84 percent.

One problem, and it’s a significant one in terms of Ryan’s statement: The stimulus
package was approved in February 2009. Ryan includes it in the 2010 totals, so the two-year trend under Obama looks like a rocket headed straight up.

The two-year trend under Obama looks more like a roller-coaster ride … Up a lot, and then down … not everyone agrees it’s appropriate to even include the stimulus money in the calculation, since it could be considered one-time emergency spending -- not part of the underlying base … the ultimate "emergency" allocation aimed at preventing another Great Depression.

Most experts told PolitiFact Wisconsin it’s fine to include it, as long as it appears as a one-time blip -- creating that roller-coaster rise and fall. It’s a nifty accounting maneuver. But it’s still a maneuver. We rate Ryan’s claim Barely True.

Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments:

Post a Comment