A Theory Gone Horribly Wrong
There is a very simple reason that reight wingnuts have such a strong aversion to facts; the facts just don't support their warped world view. This is the apparent reason that they oppose the teaching of evolution, reject the idea that global warming exists, and fail to see that George W. Bush is both a sociopath and a cretin. And they still insist that Ronald Reagan was a genius that saved the country and defeated Communism. All lies that are easily exposed as such by the application of a little reality therapy. Paul Krugman takes apart Reaganomics like a cheap toy in this NY Times article:
If this Times report is at all right, Republicans will hold any attempt to help the economy now hostage to yet another try at making the Bush tax cuts permanent — thereby, among other things, crippling future possibilities for health care reform. I suspected that’s what would happen, but thought that maybe, just maybe, the GOP would be sufficiently scared by the prospect of a nasty recession in an election year that it would back off. Guess not.Krugman provides this chart that graphically refutes anyone still clinging to Reaganomics and the trickle down theory, as practiced under the Bush regime.
There are of course other metrics that could have been used to illustrate the same point. Government revenues also fell during both the Reagan and Bush eras, resulting in the largest deficits in American history. This refutes another Reagan myth, that the 'economic stimulus' provided by tax cuts would actually increase revenues.
So why would they still be pushing an idea that is so patently false? Well, for the same reason that dogs lick their own genitals - because they can. These tax cuts are to the benefit of the same elite, a small fraction of one percent of the populace, who also control the media, run the lobbying industry, and fund both political parties. As long as they have the American public voting against their own interests based on this pack of lies, they will continue to deal bottom cards from that same old dogeared pack. And the news whores of the media will happily distract you while they steal from your stack of chips.
It's not because they are so stupid as to believe their own lies. They don't. They just want you to believe them while they rob you.
Let's back up to that Krugman quote from earlier. "If this Times report is at all right.." If you follow that link, it highlights how complicit the Democrats are in the class war the corporate elite are carrying out."A man who does not know the truth is just an idiot
but a man who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a crook."
-- Bertolt Brecht --
...even as Ms. Pelosi renewed a call by Democratic leaders for cooperation with President Bush and Republicans in Congress, lawmakers in both parties said that efforts to develop a short-term stimulus plan could easily fall prey to partisan disputes like whether to extend Mr. Bush’s tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, which expire after 2010.Given recent history, would anyone want to bet that the spineless Democrats are going to stand up to the Republicans now on this issue? I didn't think so.
The Democrats are insisting that Republicans not inject their desire to extend the tax cuts into negotiations of a short-term rescue package intended to dampen the impact of a recession. But in interviews, several Republican lawmakers said they could not imagine a debate not involving long-term tax policy.
“The planning for 2010 in a business sense is happening now,” said Representative Dave Camp, Republican of Michigan. “So it isn’t too soon to talk about making permanent the Bush tax cuts.”
And there are a couple of good reasons to think that they won't change things much even if elected by a wide margin in November. This post from Digby points out why, as does this post from Station Agent. The two front running Democratic presidential hopefuls are entrenched corporatists, and O'Bama (put that apostrophe in there and it's a fine Irish sounding name isn't it? Should be good for a few votes in the Boston area.) has just compared himself to Ronald Reagan for crying out loud.
I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.And as Digby points out, as much as Obama promises to co-operate with the elite, Hillary's husband already has.
In the global economy of the 1990s, economic growth won't come from government spending. It will come instead from individuals working smarter and learning more, from entrepreneurs taking more risks and going after new markets, and from corporations designing better products and taking a longer view...Which all goes a long way to explaining why John Edwards is invisible in the mainstream media, doesn't it? It also explains the long-term failure to bring about meaningful campaign finance reform, and how the already nearly monopolistic mass media is becoming even more consolidated than ever. They would like you to think that there is still some kind of democratic contest for control of the world's mightiest nation. There is no dualism, no duel - it's all Kabuki theater, a Punch and Judy puppet show.
The public is being played like a cheap banjo.Right now I see John Edwards as probably America's last best hope to ever recover from the nightmare. He's having a fundraising drive right now, I hope you can contribute. You can visit his site for details. (Disclaimer: This is just me talking. The rest of the unruly mob may feel differently, support another candidate or even a third party solution.)
TAGS: Voodoo Economics, Class Warfare, Election Coverage, John Edwards