Thursday, October 14, 2010

Right Path vs. Return to GOP economy: why yes, I think so.

Democrats across the country are asking a simple question, do you want to return to the GOP economy.  The President says it, the Vice President says it, Dingy Harry, Damascus Nancy and Leonard the Liar say it..  They say it several times a day, every day.  The Labor/socialist/Democrats have a metatheme and they are clinging to it like grim death itself.

For once, the LSDs have correctly framed an issue.  Does the voter want to follow the current economic trend or return the country to the days of 2001-2007, the dreaded Bush economy.

For once, the LSDs have fairly framed the issue.  We ran the economy from 2001-2007.  We owned it.  The LSD ran on a platform of economic change:  Don't believe me; do a Bing search of Democrat speeches and advertisements from the 2006 campaign.  The LSDs and their supplicant liberal media complex persuaded the voting public that the Bush economy was the worst in 80 years.

So, let's take a look almost four years later. 

When W began his second term the "official unemployment rate" (BLS U3) was 5.3%, lower than the average of any of the preceding three decades or the 30 year business cycle in total.  The more significant, if lesser known, BLS U6 measurement of total under and unemployment stood at 9.3%.  This was unemployment at a level that caused the Dems to describe a "jobless recovery".  In the two following years under the Republican Congress and a Republican President the unemployment rate fell, yes, fell, to 4.6% what during Democrat leadership was described as full employment.  The total under and unemployment also fell to 8.3%.

After two years of Democrat control of Congress and the budget and economic direction that come with it unemployment had risen to 7.7% and the U6 to 14% in January of 2009 , the month in which the dawning of Hope & Change promised better times for all.  Now, some nineteen months later official unemployment stands at 9.6% and total under and unemployment at 17.1%. 

This means that unemployment has doubled since the LSD took control of the nation's economy.

Now, look at spending.  The Democrats spent the entire 2005-2006 cycle attacking the deficit.  Indeed, there had been massive federal spending during W's first term.  Now I would argue that the stock market collapse and recession in 2000-2001, 9.11 and fighting WW3 were the primary causes but, whatever the reason, too much tax money was being spent in January of 2005.  So the bench mark for Democrat claims of excess spending should be fairly judged to be the $2.47 trillion dollar federal budget that produced a total deficit of $318.24 billion.  By January of 2007 W and the GOP Congress had reduced-there again is that active verb of diminution where diminution is preferred-the total budget by about five percent to $2.27 trillion and halved the deficit to $160.94 billion.

Everyone who has passed 8th Grade Civics knows that Congress controls the budget.  So what did Damascus Nancy and Dingy Harry do with those two Bush era budgets they controlled?  Well, from January of 2007 to 2009 the Democrat Congress increased federal spending to $3.518 trillion.  Now is that a fifty, sixty percent increase in federal spending?  The deficit in those two years grew to $1.41 trillion.  So stood the "Sitch" when the new age of enlightenment appeared in the bodily form of Barack Obama. 

Barack, who we all know to be the most brilliant person who has occupied the home of Lincoln and Reagan, assured us that more federal "investment" was the answer to that catastrophic 4.6% unemployment.  Spending began a rocket ship ride to Uranus in the age of O.  Since January of 2009 total federal spending has grown to $3.721 trillion and the deficit to a staggering $1.555 trillion.  Since the LSD took control of Congress the deficit has increased by almost one thousand percent. 

Democrats love to rationalize the obvious but for God's sake people, how do the LSDs rationalize such rather obvious and irrefutable indicia of failure? 

So yes, any thinking person should seek a return to the economy of 2005-2006. 

1 comment:

RF said...

Any specifics on which D policies since January 2007 contributed to the 2008 collapse?

I believe most serious analysis points to the 30 year governing mantra of less regulation as the one big culprit for our current situation. While many D's had bought into that model (which is not all bad, btw), it is certainly mostly associated with the R party ideology. Now that the W (yes, he deserves some credit too) & BO teams averted total catastrophy, congressional R's have shown that they have not learned anything. Fighting sensible Wall Street regulation till the end.

It's too bad the voting public has a short memory and it's nearly impossible to effectively argue with "it could have been much worse." Silver lining in all this is, that come November, R's will have to finally grab that mop and start cleaning.