Doing A Job On Us

The above chart (which embiggins by imclickens) demonstrates the lie in The Rominee's argument about job creation, one that ought to be obvious to anyone who gives it a moment's thought. One that I've pointed out here many times, to which my libertarian readers have never provided disproof: businesses won't hire people, no matter the so-called incentives, unless there's a demand for their product. You don't create jobs by lowering taxes and getting rid of regulations: you create jobs by creating jobs! And for a government, that means investing money in needed projects. Building roads and bridges, repairing dams, giving states help hiring teachers and cops, and, yes, investing in new technologies. And then, also obvious as a dog on a roof, there'll be more people with money to buy other stuff, and businesses who make that stuff will start hiring. It's not high-order economic theory. It's accessible by anyone capable of marking a ballot.

And then, by golly, at some point you gotta pay for that government spending; which means increasing revenue. Because cutting spending alone not only won't do it without dissolving government, it has the perverse effect of increasing unemployment.

Sadly, the taking of a moment's thought is exactly what Rs want the public to avoid, which is why they constantly bombard their huddling sheep with distractions and lies (check it out!), and by creating an image of President Obama that bears no resemblance to reality, any more than their economic proposals do.

Public thought -- even a moment's worth, if it's based on reality -- is anathema to R strategists. So they keep pumping the handle of tax cuts and deregulation, loudly, hoping against hope that the noise will, once again, drown out the simple truth. And, given the power of concentrated lying against disorganized honesty, it probably will.

In Case It's Not Yet Clear

[Click image, and you know what'll happen, right?]

This is old news to anyone who gets theirs from any source other than Fox. Given the power of that particular disperser of disinformation, however, it never hurts to be reminded. For full understanding of the above graphic, it's important to read the article in which it appears. The methodology is thoughtful and, if anything, errs on the side of attributing costs to Obama.

How much has Obama added to the debt, anyway?

There are two answers: more than $4 trillion, or about $983 billion. The first answer is simple and wrong. The second answer is more complicated but a lot closer to being right.

When Obama took office, the national debt was about $10.5 trillion. Today, it’s about $15.2 trillion. Simple subtraction gets you the answer preferred by most of Obama’s opponents: $4.7 trillion.

But ask yourself: Which of Obama’s policies added $4.7 trillion to the debt? The stimulus? That was just a bit more than $800 billion. TARP? That passed under George W. Bush, and most of it has been repaid.

There is a way to tally the effects Obama has had on the deficit. Look at every piece of legislation he has signed into law. Every time Congress passes a bill, either the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the effect it will have on the budget over the next 10 years. And then they continue to estimate changes to those bills. If you know how to read their numbers, you can come up with an estimate that zeros in on the laws Obama has had a hand in.

Aye, there's the rub. Such things take a willingness to understand, and, for teabaggRs, a departure from preferred answers when the facts lead that way. So, being reality, it's not gonna change the minds of those who prefer the RWS™ narrative.

Meanwhile, in the same vein, today's news of a significant uptick in jobs and downtick in unemployment will be in need of serious topspin from those (read: every RWS™, every R candidate, still standing and not, every teabagger) claiming that the stimulus failed. (Like every other thinking person, I recognize it didn't work well enough or fast enough, and criticism on those grounds is fair. As is acknowledgement of the reason: Obama, maddeningly, continued to believe, well past the irrefutable evidence against it, that he could bring Congressional Rs on board by moving just one more step toward their ever-receding goalposts, watering down both the stimulus and the Affordable Care Act. As he underestimated the depth of the financial crisis, so did he overestimate -- ie, thinking there was any at all -- the willingness of Rs to do what was right for the country, as opposed to thinking only of themselves.)