Jump to content
peter45

Do we need a name for Obama's spending to bail out of Bush's Great Recession?

Recommended Posts

Obama spend a lot of borrowed dollars to recover from the G. W. Bush caused Great Recession.

 

The Fox "conservatives" ALWAYS mention Obama's spending when Liberals attempt to point out that Trump's economy is based on more spending and lending of borrowed dollars.

Granted,

many of the regular "conservative" posters here KNOW that Obama's spending was required to reconstruct the economy post-Bush.

But,

you never really know, by some of their comments, if they really expect that the Great Recession was going to end in 6 months.

And, of course,

the Fox lie machine pays big $dollars for "bumper sticker" phrases, which misrepresents the truth,

which may take two or three paragraphs to explain,

into;

"Well, Obama spent ……."

 

And then, of course, the asinine lie that Obama "prolonged" the recession.

 

But, does something like;

"Spending to recover from the Bush recession",

or,

"Reconstruction costs from the Bush recession",

or anything else REALLY cover the damage that Bush, and Republicans, in general, do to this country?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, peter45 said:

But, does something like;

"Spending to recover from the Bush recession",

or,

"Reconstruction costs from the Bush recession",

or anything else REALLY cover the damage that Bush, and Republicans, in general, do to this country?

 

It seems too complex a subject to cover in a bumper sticker phrase.  And the sad fact is that, even if we came up with a good one, the left does not have the same, vast, Right Wing Media machine to repeat the phrase and make it sound familiar and legitimate.  Right wing talk radio is immeasurably more widespread than the few voices on the left. 

 

The right popularizes simple, bumper sticker phrases, only by long-term repetition.  And in that way, such phrases become self-evident to believers.  And more people on the left, than on the right would be dissatisfied with a simplified, bumper sticker, explanation.  I think we are going to have to appeal to people on the merits, instead of greatly simplified catchphrases.

 

A better educated public would go far to remedy the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The housing bubble collapsed leading to the Financial banks collapse. The Glass-Steagall Act after the 1929 stock market crash that led to the Great Depression  separated commercial banking from investment banking and was repealed in 1999. The market economy is dependent on demand and not supply. The collapse of the housing market led to a collapse of the big banks that didn't hold enough money for the shortfall of trillions of dollars not just in the US but in the EU as well. And of course this crippled demand. 

What was propping up the US economy prior to 2005 was an over reach on housing bonds that were bundled and sold as stocks. S&P over-rated these bonds big time and then the bottom fell out. 

The supply and demand economics that John Maynard Keynes used had to do with the fiscal use of government spending. The government should stimulate demand in anyway possible when the business cycle hits a standstill.

Modern Monetary Theory took over the day slowly by making the interest rate equal almost zero. But then that didn't work, so they went to a totally new strategy called quantitative easing. 

The Fed didn't call it quantitative easing, they called it large scale asset purchases. It is sort of like printing money, but it is in theory, electronic production of money to buy bonds in order to inject money back into the banking system.

 

On the other side, Obama wanted to stimulate the economy fiscally using Keynesian economics. This would take deficit spending big time in order to stimulate demand. 

Some economist think the economy would have grown much faster if the deficit spending would have been at least twice the amount that Obama was allowed to spend through Congress.

 

Slowly, through allowing the economy  to grow through quantitative easing, the Fed has kept a close eye on inflation.  The non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment (NAIRU) has

in the past always kept the full employment number as 5.4 percent. But a lot of economists have pushed back against this number. 

 

Currently we have reduced the full employment numbers closer to 4 or even below that, and still inflation has been kept just below or at 2%. 

 

Tax cuts for the rich and corporations did contribute to a rise in the GDP in 2018, however, that was a one off, and also, those tax cuts have added to the Federal debt.

 

I guess we are now rolling along, even though, we need massive infrastructure spending, as well as massive spending to counter climate change.

 

Our Healthcare spending has not been reduced, medicare and SS are both adding to the debt. Meanwhile millions of people in the US have no healthcare at all. 

 

The big fiscal spending required for action at this point in time sits where it did decades ago - dead in the water. 

 

The point here is efficiency. And no, it's not the same thing as a Corporation investing capital to make future profits.  

 

It has more to do with the future of this country, and certainly the future of this very planet - that is mostly, all the people who live on it.

As George Carlin once said, the planet of Earth doesn't need people. You think you can F the planet that's been here 4.5 billion years, it'll be there long after humans. I betcha!!!

I like most of you am not waiting, holding my breath, waiting for Trump, or anyone in the Republican Party to make any smart, cogent move.

Peace!

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also want to suggest that there are a myriad of ways for the government to raise revenues that would not hurt the poor, the lower middle class or even the middle class, whatever that is these days. A modest financial transaction tax of 0.001 % would raise 60-80 billion a year for starters. 

It is the system that has created inequality where CEO's now make - I don't know the number, something like 360 times as much as the average worker. Here's a graph I plucked off the internet in the last few years alone.

 

I think it shows that American Shareholders are doing well. They must be. And this has been the blueprint behind Congressional inaction. 

 

Image result for graph that shows CEO pay to average workers in last forty years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2019 at 1:36 PM, bludog said:

The right popularizes simple, bumper sticker phrases, only by long-term repetition.  And in that way, such phrases become self-evident to believers.  And more people on the left, than on the right would be dissatisfied with a simplified, bumper sticker, explanation.  I think we are going to have to appeal to people on the merits, instead of greatly simplified catchphrases.

 

A better educated public would go far to remedy the situation.

 

If you want to try to educate a group, you have to consider the abilities of the group.

 

Look at columns 1 and 2 of this chart:

https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx

 

The percent of the population with IQ under 80 is 9.12%. The percent of the population with IQ under 105 is 63.06%. So the percent of the population with IQ between 80 and 105 is (63.06 - 9.12)% = 53.94%. (Figures rounded to second decimal place. I'd use 54% because the figures are approximate and the decimal places aren't really meaningful.)

 

This group of people cannot be taught with considered arguments about merits. They can only be taught with simple catchphrases, by repetition, by rote. The majority of voting Americans, 54%, aren't all that bright.

 

If the left wants to win an election, we must first be realistic about the abilities of the electorate.

 

The contradiction here is that as the society gets more complex, people aren't getting any better at handling it. They're willing to buy a simple lie, and the Republicans have understood that and provided a simple liar.

 

They'll happily believe that it's all the fault of ... the immigrants, our allies, the Chinese, the media, the Democrats, anything except the policies of the Republicans. When the Republicans can't fix it for them (because the world really has gotten more complex), they'll either say that the Democrats wouldn't let Trump do anything, it they'll say he did it even if he didn't.

 

So we need a good catchphrase, that can't be easily or authentically mocked. Meaning: it needs to sound cool, and when the right tries to mock it, they should should lame.

 

"It's Morning Again in America."

"Read My Lips, No New Taxes."

"It's the economy, stupid."

"Yes we can."

"Make America Great Again."

 

More slogans of the past here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, laripu said:

The percent of the population with IQ under 80 is 9.12%. The percent of the population with IQ under 105 is 63.06%. So the percent of the population with IQ between 80 and 105 is (63.06 - 9.12)% = 53.94%. (Figures rounded to second decimal place. I'd use 54% because the figures are approximate and the decimal places aren't really meaningful.)

 

This group of people cannot be taught with considered arguments about merits. They can only be taught with simple catchphrases, by repetition, by rote. The majority of voting Americans, 54%, aren't all that bright. 

 

If the left wants to win an election, we must first be realistic about the abilities of the electorate.

 

Great point.  Statistics of this type can be extremely useful in political calculations.

 

One more thing:   After memorizing simple concepts by repetition, this 54% group sees no need to analyze the idea.  Once imprinted, the phrase becomes self-evident ...  They accept it on faith and their trust is nearly absolute.  So, as you imply, it is more important for a political catchphrase to sound attractive than for it to make sense.

 

17 hours ago, laripu said:

So we need a good catchphrase, that can't be easily or authentically mocked. Meaning: it needs to sound cool, and when the right tries to mock it, they should should lame.

 

"It's Morning Again in America."

"Read My Lips, No New Taxes."

"It's the economy, stupid."

"Yes we can."

"Make America Great Again."

 

More slogans of the past here.

 

Again, great point.   One of the right's stock-in-trade techniques is mockery.   The hardest phrases to mock would be those expressing broad generalities.  Anything too specific would probably be more vulnerable.      Of course any slogan needs to be tailored for the spirit of the candidate in question.    

 

Some Possibilites:

Kamala Harris -     "Here Come The Judge"

                                 "Truth, Justice And The American Way"

                                 "Honesty, Integrity And Economic Justice"

                                 "America's DA"

 

Elizabeth Warren - "Education and Opportunity For All"

                                 "Now Is The Time"

                                 "Economic Opportunity For All Americans"

                                 "Save Social Security And Medicare"

 

Bernie Sanders -     "Now Is The Time"

                                  "Medicare For All"

                                  "Economic Equality In America"

                                  "No New Wars"    "Avoid Foreign Entanglements - G.W."

 

Joe Biden -              "Stability, Progress and Justice"

                                  "Power For Ordinary People"

                                  "Strengthen The Middle Class"

                                  "Tried and True"

                           

 

Conceivably the most inane slogan ever used in a president election was  "I LIKE IKE".  Earlier was the U.S. Grant slogan of 1872, "Grant US Another Term";  Pithy😁

                                                                                    1696#h=2152&w=1696

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The concept of strategic "fuzzy" information should also be considered.

 

I watched the CBS evening news one night.

The two senators from Illinois were on the video, saying;

"ICE should be REPLACED."

Apparently, the CBS corporate propaganda minister had immediately taken control,

so the announcer reported;

"The senators said that ICE should be ELIMINATED."

I was amazed that the announcer could read the lie with a straight face within 20 seconds of the recording of what the senators had actually said.

 

So, possibly, questions should be asked about;

"Will the public object to the Republicans outlawing the birth control pill?

It causes abortions some of the time, you know."

and,

"How much will the Republicans pay back of your Social Security money,

when the eliminate the program?

5 cents of every dollar that you paid in?"

 

Fuzzy information is simply taking the idea to the extreme,

something that Republicans ALWAYS DO,

but Democrats SELDOM DO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know,

in every piece of fuzzy information,

there might be a kernel of truth.

 

So,

who did the research declaring that the birth control pill does not cause abortions?

The drug companies that sell them?

Years ago, there was an article about a drug company scientist telling Antonin Scalia that if it didn't work like a contraceptive,

that it would cause an abortion.

That article has probably been purged by the "religious" right.

 

And,

supposedly when Bush proposed to privatize some of Social Security,

the Republican Speaker of the House refused to bring the proposal to the floor,

BECAUSE IT WAS TOO EXPENSIVE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, bludog said:

Conceivably the most inane slogan ever used in a president election was  "I LIKE IKE".

 

Yes, but it's short and rhymes which makes it easy to remember. And every time someone says it (even if they're only talking about it, not asserting it) a small part of them is telling themselves that they do indeed like Ike. It's perfect.

 

Something else I thought of. It's not only beneficial if mockery of a candidate's slogan looks lame, it may also be beneficial if it looks cruel and petty. You know they're going to go after Pete Buttigieg for being gay and for the "Butt" in his name. Put that next to his military service, and religion, and the fact that he speaks many languages. (I've heard him speak French on TV, answering a reporter about Notre Dame, and his accent and command of the language are excellent. The remarks were clearly of the cuff and unrehearsed.)  It will look cruel to go after his sexuality and 4th grade to go after his name.

 

I'd never mention that he was a Rhodes scholar; no one will care and few will even know what it means.

 

Slogans for Pete Buttigieg:

Put a warrior in the White House.

Faith and service.

Buttigieg ... serves his country, serves his faith.

Pete B knows the world. Isn't it time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2019 at 1:04 PM, bludog said:

Elizabeth Warren - "Education and Opportunity For All"

                                 "Now Is The Time"

                                 "Economic Opportunity For All Americans"

                                 "Save Social Security And Medicare"

 

Elizabeth Warren - "I've got a plan for that!"

 

Bumper Sticker for 2020 elections:.....

 

"Who will you vote for in the Last Election?"

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ExPDXer said:

Elizabeth Warren - "I've got a plan for that!"

 

Good one.  Its nifty.  And it so perfectly describes her.  It wouldn't appeal to those who enjoy being hoodwinked.

 

2 hours ago, ExPDXer said:

Bumper Sticker for 2020 elections:.....

 

"Who will you vote for in the Last Election?"

 

Must have been seen on the car of a Trump fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, RayDonavin said:

Inconceivable

 

You're in The Liberal's Only Room Ray.  Conservatives are not allowed to post here.  Notice your post is gone.  Please stay out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of folks who promote supply side economics aren't dumb. I'm sure many have high IQ's respective to the populace statistically. They are the ones who are the problem, not those who have the low Intelligent Quotient, whereas if IQ can be empirically determined. I guess it would need statistical assessment, and then, in broader terms, as stated previously, there is

propaganda which is utilized to keep the most uninformed people uninformed or in a bubble. Call them the quintessentially uninformed - or if you like, the perpetually ignorant folk.

 

Peace!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×