Yes or no, Dave!

Candy Crowley asked David Axelrod three times if the private sector was “doing fine” the way Obama claimed. Three times he talked about the public sector instead.

Seriously – have they poll-tested this argument? I really don’t get the sense that the voters are in the mood for more public sector spending right now. I’m not saying that it would be a bad idea, I’m saying that dog won’t hunt.

Dave must be drinking his own Koolaid.

This entry was posted in 2012 Elections, Barack Obama and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

69 Responses to Yes or no, Dave!

  1. myiq2xu says:

    Via Hot Air:

    It’s true that government spending is part of GDP, and spending more can boost reported GDP for a time. But the lesson of the stimulus—which spent hundreds of billions of dollars in aid to the states—is that this boost is temporary and fades when the spending ends.

    Mr. Obama also misdiagnoses state and local government layoffs. They aren’t the result of falling state and local revenues, which have increased by 6% over the last two years, according to the Census Bureau. The problem is that the cost of worker benefits is growing faster than revenues. Governments are having to lay off workers to pay for their rising pension and health bills. …

    The fair if depressing takeaway from Mr. Obama’s press conference is that he continues to believe, despite three and a half years of failure, that more government spending is the key to faster growth and that government really doesn’t need to reform. This is how you get a jobless rate above 8% for 40 months and the weakest economic recovery in 60 years.

    • threewickets says:

      This is how you get a jobless rate above 8% for 40 months and the weakest economic recovery in 60 years.

      The economy is recovering from the massive financial and broader economic collapse from 2008. The federal government is less than 20% of the general economy, so this rhetoric that it’s all one or the other party’s fault is silly. The private sector (not government) deleveraged massively during the initial collapse, 8 million net jobs were lost in 2008/2009, and we’re only gradually coming back.

      • threewickets says:

        Here’s that link again.

      • threewickets says:

        Is the private sector not hiring more because there is weak market demand or because of the federal debt. If it’s because of federal debt, why are market treasury yields this low. US government borrowing costs have never been lower in the history of the nation.

        Companies are not hiring because people are not buying, and people are not buying because they don’t have money in their pockets, not because they are worried about the federal debt level. People will spend more when jobs and wages come back in both private and public sectors.

        • melisshka says:

          I don’t know much about economics, so I’m not even going to try. What I will say is that what the Fed has done to our money isn’t good. You’d think that with all the money that has been printed, inflation should be through the roof. As a result, you’d think interest rates would be high, but they’re not. In bad times, you’d hope to be able to make some nice interest on any money that you’ve managed to save. It’s not right. And I’ve been watching the rates on US Savings Bonds. They’re pathetic too. Two rates changes ago, one part of the rate was around 2%, but that’s been down the past two changes. BTW, these rates change every May and November.

        • threewickets says:

          If both inflation and interest rates were higher (and they would likely move together), the real value of our savings would remain same or comparable. Market rates are this low because everyone is trying to save at once, while spending and investing in businesses are weak. If the Fed raised rates even a little bit today, another large wave of money would be sucked out of the economy into treasury deposits. The economy needs more spending and investing, not more savings. But there’s a lot of insecurity out there still in the world everywhere. The federal debt / dollar integrity / value of US treasuries — this is not one of those areas of insecurity — certainly not based on markets.

        • melisshka says:

          I got a D+ in macroeconomics, are you surprised? 😉

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          You’re forgetting one important aspect: the healthcare law. Will it stand, and if it does, how will it impact business? A lot of businesses will simply drop insurance coverage, but they don’t want to do it in trickles, where it might get political pushback. No, they will wait to see what happens and if the mandate stands, they will drop en masse.

    • djmm says:

      “But the lesson of the stimulus—which spent hundreds of billions of dollars in aid to the states—is that this boost is temporary and fades when the spending ends.”

      In my opinion, that’s the difference between good public spending and bad public spending. Good public spending (interstate highway system, TVA, park work done by FDR’s administration, early days of NASA, Head Start) are investments that pay dividends done the road. Bad public spending is often a result of crony capitalism.

      There are good investments the current administration could have made, but that opportunity escaped them.


  2. WMCB says:

    This asinine argument makes no sense especially when juxtaposeed, as they keep doing, with the claim that our problems are because of “headwinds” from a failing Europe.

    Um, Europe is in a fix largely because they did exactly what Obama is proposing. Their public sector grew by leaps and bounds, far beyond the ability of their private sector to support it. So in order to resist those headwinds, we must do as they have done?

    Want the money to hire/retain lots of public workers? Then get the fecking private sector, the productive part of the economy, booming. Bill Clinton understood this. Cart before horse.

    And no, saying that public workers are not the producers of growth is not the same thing as saying they are not needed, or have no value, or that their spending has no stimulatory effect (I see that whine and accusation floating around a lot today). It is simply saying the truth: Govt workers do not and CANNOT drive an economy, or make growth happen. Focusing on retaining and protecting them, rather than on the growth engine that makes their existence and salaries possible, is insanity.

  3. votermom says:

    Obama & Axelrod sound like Prince John & the Sheriff of Nottingham.

  4. votermom says:

    OT Check out Dana Loesch’s timeline.

    She & her husband Chris are going thru a TSA nightmare right now – TSA is claiming Chris clothes have nitrates on them!/DLoesch

  5. jeffhas says:

    Ugh – I can’t wait to be rid of that Grease-Painted-Groucho-Marx Wannabe-SnakeOil-Can-Harry.

    … and the left said Karl Rove was creepy… (well, he is, but can we admit that in Axelrod the Dems are giving Creepy a run for it’s money).

    • votermom says:

      He’s an incredible ingrate to boot. After Hillary came through for his kid’s foundation, he masterminded the most vicious campaign in Dem history against her. Scum.

  6. WMCB says:

    People are not stupid. They see through this, even beyond the economic aspects. Obama is not focused on the public sector because of his great concern for their jobs. He is focused on one of his last remaining bastions of power and money.

    Unions, especially the govt unions, have done this to themselves, when they allowed themselves to become tied hand and foot to the Democrats – filling their coffers in exchange for unquestioning protection and coddling. Rather than keeping their power in THEIR hands, the hands of their workers, they ceded it all to a symbiotic parasite relationship to a political party.

    If you did not want the public to eventually view you as just another cynical campaign arm of partisan politics, then guess what? You shouldn’t have become one.When you have been living the cushy life in the Big House with the best of everything, in return for being the liege lord’s enforcer, don’t trot out to the peasant fields in an election year and start bleating about solidarity. Because those toiling in the fields are going to laugh in your fucking face.

    • WMCB says:

      Govt unions have more in common with the “best apartments, private grocery stores” chosen apparatchiks of the former Soviet Union than they do with the striking coal miners of the past.

      And they did it to themselves, so fuck ’em.

      • votermom says:

        ITA to everything you said. Specially the comparison to apparatchiks – perfect.

      • leslie says:

        I’m trying to copy my twitter response to this comment. I’m not certain how to do it though.

        lateblum ‏@lateblum
        @FormerDeminTX That’s for sure.They use tactics of USSR apparatchiks to coerce their “members” for support. SEIU I’m talking about you.

        View conversation Hide conversation Reply Delete FavoritedFavorite

  7. votermom says:

    Father & Son harassers of the Palins sentenced – the son calls his sentence “ridiculous.” Typical entitled obot.

    • votermom says:

      Goodness. That is so like Obama to claim credit for something he jumped into at the last minute.

      • cj says:

        That’s what happens when you burn bridges. Maybe dissing Bibi wasn’t the smartest move in the world, even when you’re special & historic like Barry O.

  8. WMCB says:

    This article. despite being utterly bullshit negative about Bill Clinton in many ways, GETS IT.

    Anyone counting the Big Dawg out, or thinking he doesn’t know what he is doing, has their head up their ass. He’s the most skilled politician I’ve ever seen, and knows the game much better than any of his detractors.

    • Lola-at-Large says:

      You know, it occurred to me a few days ago that a benefit of doing this early is that he might be considered too much of a wild card to campaign for him in the fall, or the Obamas’ famous Chicago way of punishing perceived enemies might make them cut him out of the campaign entirely. Either way he doesn’t have to do something he already doesn’t want to do, and he gets to protect his brand in the process. And it forces a huge error. They will need Bill. He’s made understanding (accepting) that more difficult for them.

      • votermom says:

        Yup! I can just see the conversation last year between Hillary & Bill:
        Hill: “You know dear, as SoS I can’t campaign for SCoaMF. Such a shame. You, however, are still on the hook.”
        Bill: “Damn it!’
        Bill: “I guess I’ll just have to be extra helpful when I campaign for him then; so helpful they’ll say I’ve done enough helping before summer ends.”

    • foxyladi14 says:

      Very good. I liked it. 🙂

  9. Oswald says:

    Politico reports on Nutroots:

    “There’s a general sense here that Obama is in better shape than he’s in,” he said. “The perception is that Romney is a pathetic candidate and they can’t imagine anyone is supporting him.”

    Koolaid is a helluva drug.

  10. WMCB says:

    Mr. Obama told the historians that he had come up with a slogan for his administration. “I’m thinking of calling it ‘A New Foundation,’ ” he said.

    Excuse me, you arrogant turd, but the foundation this country already has is fine by me. It’s called the constitution. Previous presidents, D or R, may have wanted to build different things on that foundation, some good some bad, or even transgressedd against that foundation, but they never wanted to dig down to bedrock and remake our “foundation” into something else entirely.

    This is why I want this POS and everyone associated with him gone and relegated to the political desert.

    • DandyTiger says:

      Jeebus. Every time I think this worthless asshole can’t get worse, he surprises me. He truly is the worst president in my lifetime. And I thought Bush was the worst ever.

      • Oswald says:

        His original idea was “I’m a big fucking deal”

      • leslie says:

        Dandy, Bush WAS the worst. Until now. I had no idea just how bad TehOnce could be. NONE. Did you? Did anyone? I keep askng “Who could’ve predicted?” And I really mean it.

      • WMCB says:

        Bush WAS the worst. He trampled on the constitution when it suited him, and justified it. But despite our alarmism (mine included), looking back I don’t think he really had any burning desire to supplant it. IMO, Obama does.

    • Oswald says:

      Doris Kearns Goodwin suggested that “A New Foundation” might not be the wisest choice for a motto.

      “Why not?” the president asked.

      “It sounds,” said Goodwin, “like a woman’s girdle.”

    • cj says:

      “This is why I want this POS and everyone associated with him gone and relegated to the political desert.”

      And the “intelligensia” can lead the way. Idiots.

      “Michael Beschloss…described Obama as “probably the smartest guy ever to become president,” which appeared to put Thomas Jefferson in his place.”

      • DandyTiger says:

        If you really think that, then you must conclude that Obama, who can do anything because of the shear weight of his genious, must be destroying the economy and fucking up in every other way, on purpose. That is, eleven dimensional chess. Sooo, if he’s this bad on purpose, does that make him better or worse? Incompetent or evil, which is better?

      • myiq2xu says:

        Madison and Lincoln were pretty sharp cookies too.

    • Lola-at-Large says:

      Naked imitation of New Deal anyway. Imitation can be homage, or it can be derivative. Guess which one Obama is?

    • westcoaster says:

      A New Foundation = A Blank Sheet

  11. DandyTiger says:

    Romney is the first politician to use Apple’s iAd service (used on iOS devices). What happened to the Obama kids being hip and cool and better and mobile, and social, and tech. in general.

  12. foxyladi14 says:

    I would give the zero a zero.A big fat O 😆

  13. HELENK says:

    now – he wants more government jobs

    then – he wants credit for cutting government jobs

Comments are closed.