At the end of that diagram, you can clearly see the cliff Bush drove us over. That is, of course, after he drove us over the first cliff in 2001. You can't blame the terrorists when you're the one that ignored the intelligence warnings.
I have no idea where this myth that the Cons are the party of fiscal responsibility came from. They spend like drunken sailors when they're in charge. Check out the deficit:
My goodness me, it does appear that the deficit has exponentially increased under Cons ever since Reagan.
Here's another myth-shattering chart. Corporate profits increase under Dems:
Funny how when more people can afford to buy your products, you sell more, innit?
So, with all that being the case, let me ask a question: how the fuck is it that Cons are allowed to discuss the economy, much less get their grubby hands on it? According to these charts, we should be laughing ourselves sick every time they open their mouths, and never ever again let them come within spitting distance of the economic controls.The article I took those last two charts from is well worth reading in its entirety, btw. And it's got plenty more pictures drawn from government sources for the terminally hard-of-thinking. Time to explode those myths before that precipice we've fallen over drops us into a chasm not even a Democratic president can pull us out of.
2 comments:
David Brin was talking about this stuff a great deal in the lead-up to the election (wasn't able to find any specific links quickly, but I heartily recommend his blog, although it has become more occasional of late). "Tax-and-spend liberal" would seem to be entirely a lie, created and nurtured by the Right.
I know, I didn't quite believe it myself at first; after all, aren't liberals always liberally splashing money around, while conservatives are always trying to conserve it?
Wrong. Liberals put their expenditure proposals out in the open; conservatives hide theirs in tax cuts and other less-obvious places -- and tend to use those expenditures for political payback -- with benefit that is at best short-term and is often economically destructive in the long run (e.g. wars, bad education plans, anti-science projects). They eat the seed grain rather than planting it and judiciously consuming a portion of the harvest.
We need to hammer on this point and break the grip of that meme. ...although I'm not sure who we're trying to convince, anymore; looks like most of the sane people have already left the Republican fold.
It's probably worthwhile keeping the heat on, just so they can't start building their numbers again. One way to keep the heat on is to maintain a repository of facts like this for easy future reference.
Obviously I need to set one up for a comparison of conservative vs. liberal economic policies, too. (Sometime when I'm not way behind writing code for a paying client, which will presumably happen sometime soon.)
So, with all that being the case, let me ask a question: how the fuck is it that Cons are allowed to discuss the economy, much less get their grubby hands on it?
It's simple, really. They speak and act for the rich. The rich own the news, and they largely finance elections.
Why do the rich want things the way Republicans make them? Because it's what's easier or more profitable for them, at least in the short run. They don't have to mess with unions, workers' rights, environmental laws, etc. They can keep more money for themselves. That society suffers from this sort of thing in the long run is something they seem to find debatable, at best. Unfortunately, as several nationwide laboratory experiments (including the one we're in now) have shown, it just happens to be true.
Post a Comment