Politico’s editors, Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen, have gathered all of the GOP’s most disingenuous talking points and turned them into a set of campaign slogans for Republicans, which they then publish as news analysis. In the process, they confirm once again that when talking about the economy, the D.C.’s pool boys are two of the dumbest reporters in Washington.
Here are Politco’s pool boys displaying their ignorance about the meaning of the national debt:
The size-of-government spat is a hard one for the president to win.
By the time the next election rolls around, the government will have taken on almost $7 trillion in debt under Obama. It’s hard to explain away a number so big.
Republicans will find clever ways to make that number more digestible, including handy stats such as reducing that amount to $22,500 in new debt for every man, woman and child in the nation – enough to pay for a new Toyota Corolla for each of them.
Or look at it from another vantage point.
In the past four years, the average voter has grown more dependent on government for his or her income than at any point since at least 1929, when such numbers were first tracked.
This means Social Security, Medicare and unemployment are the big income drivers – not new jobs and bigger salaries.
Oh, Lordy! Its a wonder these clowns can tie their shoes or get their honey nut cheerios on a spoon.
Now I’m not exactly the President’s greatest fan, but the myth that Mr. Obama has exploded the size of government has been repeatedly debunked, most recently on Krugman’s blog. See The Truth About Federal Spending. If you account for the fact that GDP tanked from the recession Obama inherited — that’s the denominator in the debt to GDP fraction, guys — and account in the numerator for the higher safety net spending forced by the recession, and add in the too-small stimulus to lessen the recession, you can account for virtually all of the claimed increase in government spending during Obama’s term. Lower tax revenues, including the payroll tax cut, during the near depression then add to the deficits. But third grade math is hard, and GOP media hacks don’t do math.
But that’s not the dumbest notion from Politico’s senior editors. Consider their notion that a $7 trillion increase in the debt over the years is a indictment of the Administration. These clowns apparently don’t understand that the bursting of the housing bubble destroyed about $6-7 trillion in home owners’ housing wealth. The crash of the housing market then destroyed more trillions from the nation’s GDP, and that accounts for the housing market depression that was already in progress when Obama arrived and has yet to bottom out. Blame Obama for not doing enough to relieve the suffering or failing to prosecute the fraudsters, but no one could have stopped that monster once its bubble burst.
Last Friday’s revised Commerce Department numbers for the “great recession” now tell us that by early 2008, the country was crashing into a depression, and the only thing that kept most of it from sinking into a full on depression was and has been massive federal spending. That came from both the stimulus and automatic stabilizers like unemployment insurance, Medicaid and more — all the things the pool boys think it’s fair game to demean.
If that extra spending now declines, as the 2009 stimulus and 2011 tax cuts end, and more stabilizers aren’t funded, then GDP will shrink and another million or more people will become jobless. Economists from Wall Street, think tanks and CBO all expect it to shrink by about 1.5 percent or more. Reduced spending now will shrink the economy and kill jobs.
That’s what the debt limit bill will do; it’s a jobs killer. It’s that simple. And all of the GOP Presidential front runners opposed the deal because it didn’t cut enough; they preferred policies that would kill even more jobs.
So would it be too much to ask the pool boys to ask a grown up, “what would happen if, instead of the government pumping that $7 trillion of spending into the economy over those years, the federal government imposed a “balanced budget amendment” on itself, so that $7 trillion — about 50 percent of this year’s GDP — was subtracted from the GDP?” Can you spell D-E-P-R-E-S-S-I-O-N?
Probably not. We’ll wait while the clueless pool boys find someone to do the math. When they get the answer, send a copy to the White House Chief of Staff, who is equally clueless.
So what about the pool boys’ insulting slap at Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries? In their telling, these folks are morally lacking, because more of them have become “dependent” on the government safety nets. Uh, when the economy tanks and throws millions out on the streets, more people need help. That’s why Medicaid and unemployment insurance roles have increased so much during the recession.
The pool boys don’t mention that those same folks paid into their pensions and government insurance plans for their whole working lives. No, now they are just “dependent.”
One more time, idiots: it is a good thing, not a bad thing, that the American economy could keep tens of millions of our elderly, poor and unemployed citizens afloat with small to modest incomes and some health coverage while we were trying to avoid the depression caused by the rapacious economic theories of Paul Ryan. The size of the population needing these programs tells you nothing about their moral character; it tells you we’re still in a near depression.
Honest reporters would explain this. Honest reporters don’t demean those devastated by terrible economic policies; they explain and criticize the policies and their advocates. Honest reporters would expose the GOP talking points as dishonest, mean and stupid. And then they go after the hacks in both parties that perpetuate these outcomes. But these are the pool boys, and they’ll never change.




35 Comments

$ 7 trillion will need to be about $18 trillion after 8 years if Obama is to match the Reagan debt increase percentage – Reagan got a debt of under a trillion and ran it up by around 1.8 trillion (the around is because I have not checked and am running on memory – always dangerous).
Good move, Scarecrow. It will be valuable in the coming weeks to have laid down this marker now against Politico so we can just link back here whenever somebody wants to worry a thread about “but Politico says …..”
They just print what the Allbritton Clan wants them to print, y’know. (Allbritton Communications owns Politico.) The Allbrittons are our regional east coast version of Koch Bros Inc.
Not. Independent. Journalists.
http://www.hoovers.com/company/Allbritton_Communications_Company/hkrxri-1.html
I think those clowns dip their spoon in honey and then into the Cheerios. That’s about all they’re capable of.
I can’t believe anyone reads them.
Weren’t the fabulous Albrittons also associated with the corrupt Riggs Bank in DC?
Yes, they owned it.
Well, that’s the problem, see. Most people in a position to do anything about these problems read Pool Boys and nod sagely, taking in with their morning latte the concepts, underpinnings, and conclusions of the Koch-approved talking points they regurgitate as ‘reporting.’
It’s a feature, not a bug. This ‘thinking’ informs our policy makers, politicos (get it?), and media commentators regardless of party.
Obama is on pace with last three POTUS. http://blueherald.com/2011/07/gop-bullshit-ceiling-blown-off-at-this-point/
Correction: Clinton was only half of the two Bushies. Where O falls is yet to be determined, it’s likely to be between Clinton and the Bushies but nowhere near O’s hero Ronnie Raygun.
You know, they always talk about the debt we are passing onto our children. What about the assets? Or was it all used to finance bail-outs?
The assets are all worth less these days. What’s your house worth today compared to what it was worth 5 years ago?
So how is it that every rumor from Politico is reported breathlessly?
If these folks don’t have the smarts to understand the debt, how do the have the smarts to accurately record a “background conversation”?
Yes, the whole unemployment thing and its contribution to the deficit goes right over conservatives’ heads.
As BIG a lie as that is, not IF, but WHEN the dastardly, despicable blaskhearted bastards that are the lying,right wingnuts of the republican party start spewing that bullshit ALL over the country, Obama AND the democrats are doomed in 2012. The American people already showed that their “memory” of the first 8 years of the new millunnium was VERRY short, will throw the wasteful, ineffective democrats to the wolves. They have more snake-oil salesmen on TV and the radio than the reasonable people and/or media can combat.
We be screwed, blued and tatooed.
News update:
“Worries about the state of the economy in the U.S. and around the world slammed stocks on Thursday, driving the Dow Jones industrial average to close down more than 500 points. It was the Dow’s worst drop since October 2008.”
Swell.
I can give you some EXACT figures here in Houston.
House worth $175,000 5 yrs ago just sold for $129K.
They can’t imagine not being able to live on wingnut welfare. And no doubt a 50% decline in the GDP would leave even their privileged asses on some traffic island begging for help from the guys in the limousines.
Thanks Scare.
“Pool boy,” is such a great nickname for Vandehei.
If Obama had a brain, he’d take today’s market crushing as an excuse to do stuff we elected him to do. Get us the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Take the savings from that and invest it in infrastructure, the engine of US mertiocracy, the Patent Office, education, green jobs……. Then he could get Harry to legalize pot and get use the bully pulpit to beat the wingnuts about the need for Medicare4all.
Time for the filty rich and the filthy richer to jump in and pickup some bargains……..and pay half the taxes the rest of us do on their “income”.
Obama would undoubtedly like to get of out Iraq and Afghanistan but probably can’t. I don’t think it’s quite as simple as it looks from the sidewalk outside the WH.
Wait, you mean if we leave it will get worse?
And I’m not sure that it would “save” anything to get out of Iraq or Afghanistan. It would just keep us from going deeper into debt. There wouldn’t be a pile of cash sitting around after leaving I/A.
No, I mean it’s not as simple as you imply.
One nice thing about the 14th largest single day drop in the history of the markets is that it hurts all those wingnuts who want to “privatize” Social Security.
Read just today that the Iraqis say they are willing to talk about SOME troops staying there – heavy pressure from the US for troops to stay although the promise was made (ha) that they would leave.
The primary, but by no means the only conflict is Sunni vs. Shia. When Bush took out Saddam, he removed the Sunni counterweight to Shia Iran. He made Iran the power in the region.
If we leave, Saudi Arabian royal family we’ll be in jeopardy and that’s our oil lifeline.
Is that the issue you’re concerned about?
All staying done is shed the blood of US soldiers for less expensive oil, bleed us economically, and increase the likelihood and frequency of the next terrorist attacks on US soil.
It’s not just a good thing. It’s a necessity.
Regarding the spin:
Consider the way things were when Clinton left office.
Now consider what Bush left us.
Enough said.
Not just GOP. The whole point of a journalism major is to be able to take a science that doesn’t use math in order to get your general studies credit ticked off. As a TA in geography, I had classfulls of business, music, and journalism students. The J-school folks were consistently the most self-important and dumb ones. The business folks were the most perfunctory. The music students the smartest. Yes I generalize. And the J-school was one of the premier ones in the country. I guess most of the folks I taught became PR flacks.
It also gives a scare to the naive folks who think their 401(k)s will protect them.
It doesn’t.
Especially when you have to cash it out to live on during unemployment and do it before you are 59 1/2. And pay a 10% penalty next tax time whether you are employed or not.
I think it gets worse either way. Just in different ways that have different implications on US security.
You have a dysfunctional government (designed by the Bush administration btw) with a division of power such that the President now holds the portfolios of defense, internal security, and finance himself; he has not appointed ministers. You have a society in which corruption and bribes are rampant and run up the costs of doing anything. And two or three different groups recruiting suicide bombers. If the US stays, the Sadrists pull out of the government. If the US goes, the dysfunction could create a power struggle in which Maliki becomes a dictator. And then there is the possibility of an Arab Spring movement against the government.
Now, given those circumstances, you decide whether we should stay or go.
On top of that the US policy makers are divided between those who want to get out of there and those who want “a presence in the region”.
California Progressive Democrats have voted to primary Obama.
http://www.laprogressive.com/progressive-issues/progressive-caucus/?utm_source=LAProgressiveNewsletter&utm_campaign=f3ce400c90-LAP_News_19_July_2011_Live7_18_2011&utm_medium=email
They list all the reasons here. Consensus is growing that he does not represent us.
I thnk Knut is referring to the nations assets. Like The investments in infrastructure we leave behind because we had the good sense to make those investments years ago. We can borrow monney now for near zero cost. It’s criminal not to do so.
Wow, its amazing you talked about honest reporting so many times in this post. You must be kidding, honest reporting. We’d be lucky to find one of the MSM morons who first, had a brain to think with, second, could think critically, and then you get to the honesty thing. I’ve watched Vandehei and Allen on several occassions, Allen almost creamed in his pants over the access he got with the Bush administration. He was embarassed by Arianna Huffington on a talk show about his spouting off of right wing talking points, with no analysis comparing their talking points to reality, you know the place where most of us live. These two jackasses are more concerned about access, and less about truth and honesty, which, lets be honest, they’re certainly not alone.
If papua above is correct, Obama has already surpassed the Bushes, and will surpass Reagan. Bush added $5 trillion in eight years. Obama is adding $7 Trillion in four. Reagan going from $1 T to $1.8 T is less than double. Obama is on track more than double the debt total.
As for Bush tax cuts, wars, etc. they are now Obama’s tax cuts, wars and etc. He passed the extension, prolonged Afghanistan, then started Libya and Yemen. The stimulus didn’t work, and the markets aren’t accepting more BS.
This all reminds me of Robert Mugabe. He decided that farming wasn’t a tough thing to do, so why not take over the farms and put in political favorites. And then the people starved.
Creating wealth is hard, not many people can do it, and certainly not political favorites. If you want more wealth in the country, especially in the form of taxes and jobs, quit damaging business. Business is the only place where wealth is created.
Now, THAT IS COOL!
The graph linked to is CBO numbers, where papau got his numbers you’d have to ask him that.