Republican Congressional candidate Dan Sebring, who’s hoping against hope to beat Rep. Gwen Moore in Wisconsin’s 4th Congressional district in 2010, Tweeted the following the day before yesterday:
See what America’s Conservative Thinker has to say about Gwen Moore…and me! http://bit.ly/8FJLT
Dan Sebring is apparently pleased as punch that the America’s Conservative Thinker blog had some nice things to say about him, while having some rather unkind things to say about Rep. Moore.
However, here’s what I take issue with….the blog entry Dan Sebring linked to is titled, “GWEN MOORE: WISCONSIN’S POLITICAL HEMERRHOID”. Putting aside the spelling error (it’s hemorrhoid, not hemerrhoid), I find it difficult to take seriously someone who calls himself a “Conservative Thinker” while at the same time calling an elected official a hemorrhoid (and spelling it wrong in the process).
So here’s some advice for the author of America’s Conservative Thinker: invest in a dictionary. Better yet, if you don’t want to spend the money to buy one, just use an online dictionary.
And here’s what I’m wondering….does Dan Sebring really think Rep. Gwen Moore is a “political hemorrhoid?” If he doesn’t, then why did he provide a link directing his followers to read a blog entry labeling her as such? If Dan Sebring thinks the kinds of personal attacks and vitriol being spewed by the author of America’s Conservative Thinker are going to win him votes, then it’s going to be a long election year for Sebring, who I’m still predicting to lose by at least 20 points in 2010.
To me, the most hypocritical thing of all is that Obama is able to spend $700 billion dollars to “stimulate” the economy with little to no results, and not be held acountable for it. Even his own people have said that it did little if anything to bolster our economy.
Despite such a collassal failure, the liberal media hails him a hero and messiah whose judgment must still be applauded and believed in.
If the CEO of Sears, Coca Cola or any other private company were to invest millions of dollars in a products that no one bought, they would be out of a job. The shareholders would see the value of their shares plummet and the Board of Directors would have that person removed.
But Obama can do something far worse and still have a job. Now that is the problem with our system. You cannot play President. This is not an episode of the west wing, this is the real thing.
And Zach, calling me a boob on my blog? Geez guy, I thought you wanted to have an intelligent discussion. Anymore of this and I am done here.
Tim,
The $700B has not yet been spent. The bulk of it occurs in 2010 and 2011. It is planned spending to ensure that American capitalism survives.
But here is my question for you: Who is responsible for the 3,400 point rise in the DJIA since March? If not Obam’s policies,Obama’s Economic Council, if not TARP, if not planned stimulus,if not the takeover of Wall Street by Tim Geithner, et al, well then, what has caused this?
Yes, you are correct, but because what has been spent has failed to produce any real economic growth and I dare say it won’t do what it is intended to do.
Look at Bush’s TARP spending; did this create any jobs? No.
I think the fact that the market has gone up 3400 points shows the resiliance of the American Economy. It went up in spite of the government, not because of it.
How would you attribute it to the government? THis is what Obama would like you too believe.
Sorry, I don’t understand your thinking. The mysterious economy thought the combined economic output of the best US companies represented in the DJIA was 6400 30 days after Obama took office and now the very same companies are now at 10,000 and there is no one responsible?
Bush’s TARP spending was not intended to create jobs. It was intended to stabilize the banking system. They were full of bad mortgages, remember? In truth, the financial services “banks” could not borrow money from real banks because they had assets in which the value was unknown. When Bush and Paulson let Lehman Brothers fail, the world’s capitalist countries imploded as a result.
Bush and Obama saved capitalism. Bush got the money approved by Congress and Obama, instead of nationalizing the banks, shepherded the process to ensure that Wall Street financial services survived.They saved everyone’s stock ownership and put faith back into the system.
Yes, “Obama the Socialist”, saved capitalism when he could have taken the darn financial services companies over. Imagine that. Now the DJIA is at 10,000 and the stimulus money is about to be spent next year. A rising tide floats all boats, they say.
I don’t know why the DJIA is at 10,000 but it represents faith in the ability of America to create wealth. And this recovery occurred with Obama.
TARP was intended to save banks and create stability in a shattered economy. Perhaps the initial intent wasn’t to create jobs, but the intent is to stabilize the economy, and in doing this you lay the foundation for creating jobs.
You seem to be arguing that Obama’s stimulus or something he did saved the economy?
You reasoning is that because the dow reached 10k and because it was under Obama’s admin, Obama was responsible.
Please explain how Obama saved the economy. I don’t agree with you. I think that the American people saved the economy by getting up and going to work everyday despite all the negative news drilled into our heads.
Obama will of course take the credit.
10.3 percent unemployment…highest since 1983.
How’s that Hope and Change working for you Zach?
Hi Tim, and thanks for trying to wade into the deep end of the pool with the grownups.
As anyone with rudimentary knowledge of economics understands, job creation has always been the last indicator to rebound from economic downturn. We didn’t lose those jobs all at once, and we’re not going to recover them all at once.
If you’d like, I can cite an example of what I’m talking about. The recession of 1990/1991 ended in March 1991, but unemployment rates actually continued to climb throughout 1991 and into 1992, peaking at 7.5% in 1992.
Tim, please try harder next time.
Glad to swim in the deep end Zach.
I do know a thing or too about economics Zach. I know that when you are in an economic recession, you don’t ram a monstrosity of health care bill down the collective throats of the American people. A plan that will inevitably raise everyone’s taxes, including the middle class (another Obama broken promise). More taxes in a recession? How can this possibly make sense?
I also know that a Cap and Tax bill routed in pseudo-science will also raise taxes on the middle class. A double whammy in a crippled economy.
So what is wrong with cutting taxes during an economic recession Zach? What is wrong with regular Americans having disposable income to invest in the rest of our economy?
In 1986, Ronald Reagan cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans by 23% this resulted in one of the strongest and sustained periods of economic prosperity this country has ever seen.
So if you are defending Obama, do so at your own peril. Obama and his cronies ran on a platform of economic reform which included stimulus plans which stimulated nothing.
Your reference to 1990-1 is an obvious dig on Bush Sr. Fluctuations occur in an market driven economy. But 7.5 percent isn’t 10.3 and it’s only going to get worse.
“In 1986, Ronald Reagan cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans by 23% this resulted in one of the strongest and sustained periods of economic prosperity this country has ever seen.”
Uh, not quite, considering we had a recession just four years later. However, if you want to talk about the two longest periods of sustained economic growth between recessions, we certainly can talk about that. Following the Great Depression, the two longest periods of economic growth were 1961-1969 and 1992-2001. Coincidentally, Democrats were in the White House during those time periods.
Coincidentally, who was the president the last time the unemployment rate hit 10%? I’ll give you a clue…his initials are R.R.
Let us separate fact from fiction
Despite the steep recession in 1982–brought on by tight money policies that were instituted to squeeze out the historic inflation level of the late 1970s–by 1983, the Reagan policies of reducing taxes, spending, regulation,
and inflation were in place. The result was unprecedented economic growth:
* This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from
November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II.
* The American economy grew by about one-third in real
inflation-adjusted terms. This was the equivalent of adding the entire
economy of East and West Germany or two-thirds of Japan’s economy to the
U.S. economy.
* From 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy
averaged 3.6 percent per year. From 1973 to 1982, it averaged only 1.6
percent. The Reagan economic boom restored the more usual growth rate as the economy averaged 3.5 percent in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to
the end of 1990.
* In 1991, after the Reagan rate cuts were well in place, the top 1
percent of taxpayers in income paid 25 percent of all income taxes; the top 5 percent paid 43 percent; and the bottom 50 percent paid only 5 percent. To suggest that this distribution is unfair because it is too easy on upper-income groups is nothing less than absurd.
* The proportion of total income taxes paid by the top 1 percent
rose sharply under President Reagan, from 18 percent in 1981 to 28 percent
in 1988.
* Average effective income tax rates were cut even more for
lower-income groups than for higher-income groups. While the average
effective tax rate for the top 1 percent fell by 30 percent between 1980 and
1992, and by 35 percent for the top 20 percent of income earners, it fell by
44 percent for the second-highest quintile, 46 percent for the middle
quintile, 64 percent for the second-lowest quintile, and 263 percent for the
bottom quintile.
* These reductions for the lowest-income groups were so large
because President Reagan doubled the personal exemption, increased the
standard deduction, and tripled the earned income tax credit (EITC), which
provides net cash for single-parent families with children at the lowest
income levels. These changes eliminated income tax liability altogether for
over 4 million lower-income families.
* The top tax rate fell from 70 percent in 1980 to 28 percent in
1988 during the Reagan years. What happened to the “rich”? The top 1 percent
went from shouldering 17.6 percent of the income tax burden in 1981 to
paying 27.5 percent of the total in 1988. The top 10 percent saw their share
of the burden climb from 48 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988.
* In the 1980s, tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent, much faster
than was needed to keep pace with inflation. More important, the economy
rebounded from the malaise of the 1970s. Indeed, the prosperity Americans
enjoy today is a continuing legacy of the economic renaissance triggered by
President Reagan’s tax rate reductions.
Yes, Zach you really convinced me.
Tim, I’m not trying to convince you. To be honest, I’m shocked you’ve been able to engage in a dialogue without resorting to name calling and personal attacks, given what I’ve read on your blog.
This is your comeback, “I am not trying to convince you?”
God, I suppose I really am wasting my time.
True the economy grew rapidly during Clinton’s term in office. However there was no clear correlation between his economic policies of raising taxes and the strong economy.
The strong economic growth and surplus was the result of the technology boom, which former President Reagan’s marginal tax rate cuts almost a decade earler initially stimulated, in turn fueling massive risk-taking and capital investment in the private sector. Entrepreneurs and risk takers, such as Bill Gates aided the 90’s boom, despite the Clinton tax hikes (on Social Security Payments and Marginal rates on income.
If anyting the, the private sector was able to flourish in spite of the tax increases and multitude of regulations the Clinton admin imposed. The only major pieces of legislation which stimulated the economy during the Clinton admin were welfare reform and lowering of capital gains tax in 1998, Republicans were responsibel for minimizing spending growth during the majority of the Clinton years in office.
Hi Zach,
Over 8 Million jobs lost in this Recession. Question. When is the Hope and Change going to start working? Appreciate you keeping me on the inside track.
Thanks,
Tim Nolan
America’s Conservative Thinker
Tim, as I’ve noted before, jobs are always the last thing to rebound after a recession. Look it up and you’ll find that out for yourself!
Zach, This recession is going to be a double dip. Look at what is happening now in Euorpe:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100205/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_europe_financial_crisis
Europe’s problems will nullify any updraft that U.S. Economy migh have. It’s scary stuff.