« Unsupported Democratic allegations against Chamber | Main | Twitter roundup »

October 12, 2010


Brendan - re: Gingrich comments.

Please read what Gingrish actually says, not what MediaMatters poster claims he says.

Gringrich doesn't actaully blame Obama for mis-perceptions. Instead he says if he were president he would be more cirmcumpect in his own thinking:

"If I were the president that would really concern me, not because of Fox News or talk radio or Rush Limbaugh, but what is there that he's doing that would let that many people be confused?"

"...I think the president has an obligation to slow down and say, if you're president of all the people, what is it the White House is doing that so frightens a third of the Republican Party that they don't even believe something as simple and as obvious as his self-professed religious belief."

Saying that any administration might contribute to mis-perceptions is not the same as saying "it’s Obama’s fault that Republicans believe false smears about the president." as the MMM puts it.

You shoud be just as skeptical of any MediaMatters report as you would be of a Fox News report.

I cannot understand why someone as bright and honest as Brendan quotes Chait with respect. E.g., note this sleazy wording

Then George W. Bush cut upper-bracket tax rates, and conservatives predicted that this would cause the economy to grow even faster. Instead, the economy experienced the first business cycle where income was lower at the peak of the business cycle than it had been at the peak of the previous business cycle.

In fact, Bush didn't just cut upper-bracket tax rates; he cut all tax rates. Those in the low brackets were helped the most. The NY Times never admitted that this was the case, But, a couple of days ago the Times reported that ending the Bush tax cuts would hurt the poor the most.

Also, conservatives predicted that the Bush tax cuts would end the recession. The recession did indeed end. We would all prefer Bush's relatively weak recovery to Obama's continuing economic misery.

Note Chait's mistake of claiming that real income dropped after the Bush tax cuts. In fact, real income grew dramatically a year or two after the Bush tax cuts became effective.

Chait is also wrong in implying that continuing the Bush tax cuts means a larger deficit. He ignores the possibility that there might be economic growth due to the tax cuts, there might be a greater economic slowdown if the Bush tax cuts are removed, and also that government spending might be cut.

Aside from the dishonesty of the Dems attack on the Chamber of Commerce, an anti-business attitude from the government hurts the economy. After all, it's business that provides the jobs and the wealth of the country. Taxes on business on its employees are what supports the government.

I'm influenced by just having been in Zimbabwe, where the unemployment rate is around 80%. That's not surprising, considering the nature of the government. Who would want to have a business there, when it might be taken by Mugabe or his cronies at any time.

Of course, Obama's White House isn't anything like Zimbabwe's unbridled corruption. Still, Obama's anti-business approach no doubt has the impact of discouraging businesses from forming or expanding in the US to some degree.

The comments to this entry are closed.