Do we agree, now, that job growth sucks and so does the economy? Up until this article, the pro-Obama folks have been telling us that things have been getting better. Look at Ian's posts on the subject, and listen to the President. Were 4.6 million jobs created? Is the private sector doing fine?
According to the Guardian, nope. Now, the economy sucks.
The "evidence" --
Republicans have opposed a lion's share of stimulus measures that once they supported, such as a payroll tax break, which they grudgingly embraced earlier this year ---- LOL -- Exhibit A is the payroll tax cut. This is evidence the Republicans are destroying the economy on purpose. But....they voted it in. So, what's the argument? That the Republicans, because they resisted it at first, but later caved in and gave the Democrats what they wanted, are "destroying the economy?" That must be what the article is saying.
Next item -- Even unemployment insurance, a relatively uncontroversial tool for helping those in an economic downturn, has been consistently held up by Republicans or used as a bargaining chip for more tax cuts. ---- LOL -- the article ought to mention that all the unemployment insurance extensions were ultimately passed. Further, "bargaining for more tax cuts" is bad in this instance? See the previous paragraph where the payroll tax cut is offered as something designed to help the economy.
So, the first two items listed are items which the Republicans did not prevent from going through. Next!
Third items --- "Ten years ago, prominent conservatives were loudly making the case for fiscal stimulus to get the economy going; today, they treat such ideas like they're the plague." 10 years ago? In 2002? Bullshit. What is this nonsense? And, has there been a "fiscal stimulus" policy advanced recently by the Democrats? What have they suggested which has been blocked? Anything?
Fourth item -- Republicans have made practically no effort to draft comprehensive job creation legislation. --- However, the Republican led House has passed more than two dozen jobs bills in 2011 and 2012. They are ALL bottled up by Harry Reid in the Democrat controlled Senate. So --- who is "purposefully trying to destroy the economy?" Is opposition to the Republican bills "principled opposition," and Republican opposition to Democratic measures "purposeful destruction?"
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/ ... B320120224
Next item -- the Republicans support extending the Bush tax cuts. LOL, which the Guardian posits hurt the economy. They think that raising taxes across the board will help the economy, and Republican efforts to extend the Bush tax cuts hurt the economy. So, Bill Clinton supports hurting the economy, I guess:
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/05 ... s-20120605 -- no room is provided in the article that extending the tax cuts would help the economy. But, at the same time -- see item one above -- where payroll tax cuts are offered as a means of helping the economy. So, tax cuts proposed by Democrats = good, and tax cuts proposed by Republicans = bad.
Fabulous argument.
Then there are gems like -- "These cuts have a larger societal impact. When teachers are laid off, for example (and nearly 200,000 have lost their jobs)," -- Yet, federal tax dollars are a drop in the ocean of school funding. The vast majority of school funding, including teacher salaries, are paid for by property taxes, State income taxes, State sales taxes, and the like. Letting the Bush tax cuts expire would do nothing for the laid off teachers. The Guardian, apparently, doesn't need to think too deeply about these things. Tax cuts occurred, teachers got laid off, therefore, tax cuts laid off the teachers.
One big falsehood expounded by this article is that the US has gone the route of austerity. The US didn't. And, in many folks opinions, that's the reason we haven't rebounded better. See this article:
http://www.investopedia.com/financial-e ... z1xgIfqnaH To suggest that the US has been "austere" while running deficits of $1.3 Trillion dollars and up every year is laughable. What ought to have been spent in excess of revenues? $2 trillion a year? That would be "responsible?"
The article then suggests that Republican attempts to resist the constant raising of the debt limit was responsible for a reduction in consumer confidence. Frankly, to many of us, resistance to knee-jerk, unquestioning raising of the debt limit is an indication of responsibility. Why should the debt limit just be raised without question? What is the debt limit for, if not to limit debt?
The article discusses the fact that the Senate did not vote the President's jobs bill in. Well, several Democrats voted against that bill too -- one of them was Harry Reid (Senate Majority Leader).
Towards the end, the article states that the measure proposed by the Democrats would "clearly" help the economy, and that the Republicans must either be purposefully hurting the economy, or they are just fiscally incompetent. LOL -- that's right -- the argument boils down to that. We start with the proposition which is inarguable -- that the Democrats want to help the economy, and what they are doing is "clearly" going to do that. Thus, if Republicans oppose the Democrats, then they are either evil, or stupid. There isn't room to argue that the Democrat wild tax-and-spend policies are bad for the country. It's just not an option. We all know that if the Democrats call for a tax cut -- they do so for valid fiscal reasons. If the Republicans do so, it's not.
