Party of Stupid

#1
Balloon Juice Blog Archive The Stupid Party

Ok, so here's the graph, from the Republican website:


And here's another one:


Now - this might seem like a fraternity prank by "special" boys from a "special" school. And it may be based on projections the Bush- administration basically outlawed while he was in office. And you might need the brain of a slug to actually fall for this.

But consider this: there has been a huge shitstorm going around the country for the last couple of weeks. Obama has been depicted as the big spender, out of control communist/nazi/devil who will not only raise taxes and kill the economy, but in the process lose jobs at an alarming rate.

In other words, a campaign to ignore the last eight years in practice, while remembering them in theory has been pulled off successfully.

This is in other words no more complicated than stating with utter conviction that the same policies that has plummeted the US into a recession and a crisis - have to be continued, or else the economy will really be down the shitter.

So there you have it. The GOP mysteriously knows exactly what strings to play on, the grassroots tea- meetings happen completely independently, and it is a sign of valiant struggle against statism and authoritarianism to blindly support the continuation of Bush's economical policies in the face of disaster.

It just never stops, does it. :lol:
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
#2
Yeah, I don't see how objecting to Obama's policies somehow translates into supporting Bush's, or ignoring the last 8 years. I also fail to see how the last 8 years "plummeted" this country into a recession, it's much more complicated than that.

What I do see, however, is that those who blame the last 8 years fail to take into account that any policies passed were the fault of both parties, not one man.
 

Mirage

Administrator
Staff member
V.I.P.
#3
A lot of us were furious when Bush allowed the first stimulus and bailouts to go through. It was utterly ridiculous.

Obama is nothing more than Bush 2.0 when it comes to spending. He picked up where Bush left off and has been even worse so far.

As for those graphs, public opinion can be swayed, but please tell me how the "Jobs Lost" number can be faked by the GOP? Seems to me that that would be a really easy thing to cross reference.

Opinion polls are different than factual graphs. It's not the GOP's opinion that those jobs have been lost, but facts based on... here I'll just say it... jobs lost since Obama got into office? I don't get how you can attack that stat..
 

MenInTights

not a plastic bag
#4
Question: If Obama takes a shit and it stinks is it Bush's fault?

Answer: Of course it is because Democrats are good and Republicans are bad. Democrats are smart and Republicans are stupid. That's what they taught me at my socialist school so it must be true.
 
#5
Well, sure I agree with the description that what Bush did was essentially craft a cover for the ongoing policies of the party of business - that sounded republican. And that the substantive difference between Obama and Bush economically is - Obama will let the tax- cuts for the upper créme crust expire in an attempt to balance the budget, spend money to actually pay for the army properly, and focus slightly more on domestic problems. And he appears more willing to sign budgets with certain oversight provisions - although we don't really know that yet.

So yes, the actual difference is tiny, and I fully agree that if you truly are committed to sinking entire states financed on military contracts, and so on - then justifying Obama's economical policies is marginally less difficult than justifying the Bush administration.

But I'll insist that for one of the major party in any nation with schools to pull off something like this without being blacklisted from politics forever, that's remarkable. See, here's what's going on - the definitions used for "job- loss" are changing, and so does the method for stopping lost jobs. So on the face of it, this is not an easy statistic to even put in one single number. And obviously the two administrations define job- loss differently, dependent on what sort of mechanism they wish to look at. Are jobs lost if the work- force is still employed? Or is merely an unstable job- situation a problem? None of that is even touched upon. It's not even in the near vincinity of the GOP reality.

Then let's look at the public debt graph. I mean.. seriously. What the hell? As I said, one thing is that we know the GAO has been issuing reports the Bush- administration simply has not awknowledged exist. So are they comparing an initial projection by the outgoing administration? A worst case scenario then? Who kows.

But apart from that, they are comparing the two outlooks for a reason: They wish to convey that if we only had clapped our hands together hard enough, the debt would've gone away, and the economy would be more stable. But now that Obama has taken control, there's just no way that giving money to the banks without even a stern look can even work to envigorate the economy by magic anymore! Bad Obama!

*shakes head*.. I'm just telling you that this is so ridiculous that if one of our parties had tried this, and the leadership had not instantly gone out and distanced themselves from it all, and blamed some unruly wing of the party, or whatever - they would've been effectively blacklisted from partaking in serious political discussion forever. They'd never recover. Below the 4% bar - out of the parliament.

So on the flip- side - the only space where these graphs would actually be useful, would be in projecting realistic numbers, for allocating funds or strategies for some type of solution. What that solution would be, might be interesting. How to address the real and rising unemployment around the country, while also reducing government spending - now that's also another interesting topic.

But "how things would've worked out if we only closed our eyes", that isn't intended to show the advantage of certain policies, or agitate against certain measures taken by the other party.
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
#6
They funny thing is that the GOP always drives up the deficit when they have the presidency. Conservatives will say they don't approve of that even when their guy is doing it, but they sure don't scream about the sky falling unless a Democrat happens to be in office. Reagan skyrocketed the deficit in a completely unprecedented manner during his presidency, and yet conservatives put the guy on a pedestal. Meanwhile, Obama still has some years left to reign in the budget in a way Reagan never did, but is apparently destroying the country. Go figure.
 
Last edited:

Sim

Registered Member
#7
At very least it's absurd to blame Obama for rising debt or unemployment, which clearly is the result of the financial crisis Obama is not responsible for.

Even if Obama's policies are 110% good and fine (not saying they necessarily are), we will see another couple of months or even years of rising unemployment -- the crisis which started in 1929 lasted for 4 years, there was rising unemployment and a crippling economy until 1933, and even until 1942, America had not fully recovered yet.

Of course that neither means necessarily that Bush is responsible for the financial crisis, nor that Obama's policies are good (debating that is another topic). I'm just saying it's impossible to come to such conclusions based on graphs like that only.
 
#8
..have to admire the kind of mind to come up with putting: "Obama's 100 day spending spree" on top of the graph, though.
------
btw - Arlen Specter switching parties.. He's doing this because of the unpopularity of supporting the stimulus package with his GOP constituency, no?
 
Last edited: