The Alito Recession
Via John Cole, this graph from the GOP Congressional website cracks me up:
That's some solid causational logic. Somehow Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Congress managed to trigger job losses from the very moment they took office. How exactly they managed to accomplish this instantaneously and over President Bush's veto is unclear. And there's no possible way that the people who had been running Congress for the 12 years prior could have played any role.
The truth is, you could make the very same graph with an image of Samuel Alito in the background. After all, the nation has shed millions of jobs since he became a Supreme Court justice in 2006. And you know what else started in 2007, at the very same time Pelosi and the Democrats took over Congress? That's right, The Surge. Coincidence? I think not. I want to see a Surge vs. jobs graph.
And while we're at it, let's make a similar graph with the Crocodile Hunter's picture in the background. I think he died around the same time. That event clearly sent the world spiraling into recession. The proof is in the graph. Or how about Dick Cheney shooting his friend in the face? That also happened around the same time. Let's make a graph with Cheney in the background and the title "A Shot Heard Round the World." Meaningless correlation is so much simpler than actual analysis.
Seriously, though, does the GOP really think Americans are that dumb? That they can just wipe their hands of all responsibility for having been in charge of all the branches of government during the entire relevant time period leading up to the current recession? I suspect that even your average teabagger understands that the causes of our current economic crisis date back prior to 2007. Indeed, if I'm up to speed on current Republican mythology, the economic crisis was caused by some combination of Barney Frank, ACORN, and greedy minorities. But I'm pretty sure that even in this alternative history, the key events happened before 2007. So who exactly is the GOP trying to convince with idiotic charts like this?
The deeper irony of the Pelosi/jobs graph is that it underscores the level of epic political failure of the Republican party. I always thought the GOP would lose its majority when the consequences of Republican economic policies came home to roost. But George Bush was so manifestly incompetent and the Congressional GOP so hopelessly corrupt and crazy that they managed to get themselves run out of town in 2006, just before the economy really started to turn South. That's pretty impressive if you think about it. When was the last time a ruling political party managed to get routed so badly in a time of relative economic calm? Well done, GOP.
That's some solid causational logic. Somehow Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Congress managed to trigger job losses from the very moment they took office. How exactly they managed to accomplish this instantaneously and over President Bush's veto is unclear. And there's no possible way that the people who had been running Congress for the 12 years prior could have played any role.
The truth is, you could make the very same graph with an image of Samuel Alito in the background. After all, the nation has shed millions of jobs since he became a Supreme Court justice in 2006. And you know what else started in 2007, at the very same time Pelosi and the Democrats took over Congress? That's right, The Surge. Coincidence? I think not. I want to see a Surge vs. jobs graph.
And while we're at it, let's make a similar graph with the Crocodile Hunter's picture in the background. I think he died around the same time. That event clearly sent the world spiraling into recession. The proof is in the graph. Or how about Dick Cheney shooting his friend in the face? That also happened around the same time. Let's make a graph with Cheney in the background and the title "A Shot Heard Round the World." Meaningless correlation is so much simpler than actual analysis.
Seriously, though, does the GOP really think Americans are that dumb? That they can just wipe their hands of all responsibility for having been in charge of all the branches of government during the entire relevant time period leading up to the current recession? I suspect that even your average teabagger understands that the causes of our current economic crisis date back prior to 2007. Indeed, if I'm up to speed on current Republican mythology, the economic crisis was caused by some combination of Barney Frank, ACORN, and greedy minorities. But I'm pretty sure that even in this alternative history, the key events happened before 2007. So who exactly is the GOP trying to convince with idiotic charts like this?
The deeper irony of the Pelosi/jobs graph is that it underscores the level of epic political failure of the Republican party. I always thought the GOP would lose its majority when the consequences of Republican economic policies came home to roost. But George Bush was so manifestly incompetent and the Congressional GOP so hopelessly corrupt and crazy that they managed to get themselves run out of town in 2006, just before the economy really started to turn South. That's pretty impressive if you think about it. When was the last time a ruling political party managed to get routed so badly in a time of relative economic calm? Well done, GOP.
posted by A.L. at 10:19 PM
19 Comments:
"Seriously, though, does the GOP really think Americans are that dumb?"
The answer is very complicated for such a simple question. Partly, yes, some in the GOP believe everyone to be that dumb... but I would like to think they are in the minority. I could easily be wrong.
Quite a few in the GOP do believe their base to be that dumb, and much of what comes from the GOP is preaching to the choir. Nearly everything they say on the economy, for instance, is meant for their base and they are hoping that their base will then spread that message into the larger culture. People affect the views of those they interact with, one way or another.
There is also a wide slice of political strategists in both major parties committed to the idea that the simplest messages are best even if they are stupid. This was the Dick Morris school of political strategy when Clinton triangulated his way into the White House and it was the Karl Rove school of political strategy for George W. Bush.
Since the strategies work terribly well, there may even be something to them.
This is Nobel Prize-worthy and funny. Carry on.
That's some solid causational logic. Somehow Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Congress managed to trigger job losses from the very moment they took office. How exactly they managed to accomplish this instantaneously and over President Bush's veto is unclear.Another attempt by the left to rewrite history.
The first war funding bill for Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007 included an increase in the minimum wage as well (with a cute exception for the Nancy Pelosi-based, I mean San Francisco-based Delmonte on their tuna canning operations in American Samoa). Democrats stuck that "poison pill" in there after being unable to stop the funding bill from getting through Congress.
I think what is most telling is that when the economy was humming along, including when unemployment was under 5%, the left spent the whole of the Bush years trying to convince people how bad the economy was, blaming the GOP and businesses along the way. Then when the recession finally did hit, it was easy for the left to continue the lie on who was to blame. That is the alternative history, as presented by the left.
I'm not saying the minimum wage is the cause of the current labor problems; that was clearly caused by the housing and credit issues. But it did start there with the minimum wage changes. Therefore, the chart with Pelosi's picture is quite appropriate.
There are a solid 28% that stick by Bush and the Reps. I've talked with some of them, and facts are really not a consideration in their decisions. They gobble something like this up.
Steve, so you moved to Arkansas?
As for your contention that the minimum wage increase led to large scale job losses, that's laughable. Please find me even one economist who believes that. First, the minimum wage didn't go up until July 2007 and then it only went up from 5.15 to 5.85. A majority of states (including the most populous ones) already had higher minimum wages. In fact, there are only a handful of states that had rates lower than the federal one.
But all of this is sort of beside the point. The vast majority of lost jobs have been people who make significantly higher than minimum wage, and literally no reputable economist believes that our current economic crisis has anything to do with the minimum wage. But I guess you're smarter than all of them, aren't you steve?
I think there may be more of a causal link with Justice Alito.
Steve, so you moved to Arkansas?Yes, I did. It's gorgeous here (NW Arkansas, in the Ozarks).
As for your contention that the minimum wage increase led to large scale job losses, that's laughable.I didn't say it led to large scale job losses. But there were job losses. If you take a look at the chart, those job losses didn't really take off until the problems with the banks (and subsequent bailouts) came to light. But the job losses in 2007 did occur.
Please find me even one economist who believes that.Find me one economist who actually runs a small business, especially one that employs minimum wage workers. The effects on business, especially small business, and those workers who were laid off, are real.
The vast majority of lost jobs have been people who make significantly higher than minimum wage,...Immaterial. You contend that the chart showing job losses since Pelosi and the Dems took power in 2007 is misleading. As you can see, job losses started just around the time the minimum wage change took effect. There weren't great losses, and I never said they were the cause; but as I said, those losses did occur. As far as I can tell, the GOP chart is entirely accurate.
It's a variant of the Friedman napkin:
http://futzinfarb.blogspot.com/2009/01/obama-effect.html
Steve, job losses occur starting at the beginning of the chart simply because that's where the chart begins.
The creators of the chart picked that point. What if the chart were of job losses since George W. Bush took office? What if the part of the line we see is just the last part of a long line of increasing job losses?
We can't tell anything about the trend before the chart starts without additional data. So we can't say that "job losses started just around the time the minimum wage took effect", because they could have started much earlier, and been left off the chart because that wouldn't make the Democrats look bad.
If they weren't trying to lie with this chart, they'd have shown the trend BEFORE the Democratic majority as well, so that we could see a dramatic change in slope, if there was one. That the makers of this chart DIDN'T do that is a tip-off that they are pulling a fast one.
As far as I can tell, the GOP chart is entirely, intentionally. misleading. Oh, and anytime you want to get around to citing your sources on the numbers of jobs lost to the increase in the minimum wage, that'd be nice.
I am glad you mentioned ACORN. All the Repugs can say about the sub-prime mortgage fiasco is that ACORN blackmailed the Banks to loan to unqualified minorities. Forget that most sub-primer lenders were not under Fannie or Freddie, it was ACORN's fault for causing all these great banks to make these bad loans.
So, where are we today. The banks are telling the Feds to get out of their banks, they will not be told what to pay their executive BUMS, and don't America get it that America needs banks more than banks need America. Think of all the credit card interest rate increases going up everywhere while the banks are borrowing at near zero interest rates.
My rant is that ACORN was sooo powerful as to make the banks loan to undeserving people, but yet the banks have no compunction to tell the Feds that they can pay what they want, and that the Feds should mind their own business.
By Repug logic, ACORN should have skipped blackmailing the banking industry and gone directly to blackmailing the Feds, since the banks have no fear of the Feds, but obviously were "SCARED TO DEATH" by ACORN.
What an absolute piece of crap the Repugs are, and their argument of ACORN blackmailing banks is an obvious example.
The short answer to your question is, yes - they think we're that stupid.
And why not? The epic tome on conservatism, "The Conservative Mind" by Russell Kirk, lays out the pillars of conservative "thought" (if one may call it that) in the first 35 pages. They are ignorance, prejudice, magical thinking, and false choice. I am not making this up. The first two are explicitly stated, the latter two my interpretation.
i forgot to mention that right after the '08 election, Grover Norquist blamed the stock market decline on a) the Democratic success in the mid term election of '06, and b) the Democratic success in the election of '08.
The market peaked in October '07, a year removed either way from these events, and fell off a cliff when Palin was selected as VP choice.
The fact that there is no way to correlate any sort of cause and effect relationship natters not at all. For the conservative, ideology trumps reality, all day, every day.
The GOP isn't really trying to convince anyone of anything with this chart. (That would imply an appeal to reason. What they are trying to do is personalize the recession and link it to Pelosi.) They know that Hoover's indelible association with the Great Depression tainted the Republican 'brand' for a generation at least, and they are desperately trying to pass the buck for the current meltdown.
The specific point of propaganda like this chart is to solidify the base's belief that Pelosi is a San Francisco disaster and to give them some tiny nugget of a bogus factoid to use as they harangue their drinking buddies and co-workers over the sorry-assed state of the gumint. Thus, they reason, they can sway those 'independents' who are actually ashamed Republicans.
Oh, good, some Republican piece of shit is trotting out the minimum wage is bad/small businessmen are holy and pure strawman.
Ok, bub, but what happens to your house of cards when you factor in the other great GOP boogeyman, illegal Latino workers? If you got your wish and deported 20 million people, then your saintly small businesspeople would then have to pay their legal 'Merican workers wages WELL above what illegals were making. Lo and behold, they would be paying substantially more for labor than the measly 65 cent minimum wage increase you're whining about. I guess that unemployment would spike way the hell up by your brain dead "logic".
biggerbox:
Oh, and anytime you want to get around to citing your sources on the numbers of jobs lost to the increase in the minimum wage, that'd be nice.Here you go. If you look at the chart beginning at 1/07, it looks very much like the one the Republicans put out.
So, Steve, are you in favor of repealing the minimum wage? Just what do you suppose would happen to the wages of unskilled people?
Seriously, if you're going to whine about the minimum wage, then put up or shut up. Yes or no.
If you can't answer that, you're just another chickenshit Republican who clearly doesn't feel that they have anything to fear from the consequences of their own ideas.
The right love these it can't be "proven" false - the dems DID take over congress in 2007, that IS a chart of job losses since then. Thus in their minds it irrefutably proves that dems are the suxxors. Steve above proves the point by doing the same damn thing with minimum wage increase.
Grade school children argue like this as well.
I love post hoc arguments. AL, your examples are classic.
I got a promotion and a fair salary bump around that time, so it's probably my fault.
I've spoken with 3 Republican neighbors of mine who honestly believe that all the blame for the current recession can be placed on Nancy Pelosi. And all the blame for the huge deficits of the past 8 years can be placed on Bill Clinton (the blame shifted from Clinton to Obama on January 20). I mean, these are 3 different people, all neighbors of mine but not with a lot in common, except they must have gotten these ideas from the conservative media. I'm astonished to have to say that all 3 of them honestly believe that the Democrats are to blame for just about everything. And all they really care about is gaining seats in the 2010 elections; they don't care about the many people who are suffering right now. I am amazed at how removed these people have become from reality.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home