Economic messaging profoundly impacts economic policy. Although right-wing, Ayn Rand- Bush-Romney-Ryan policies have failed miserably, they continue to win the messaging, providing psychological succor as we hurtle headlong into economic decline.
One particularly effective bromide has been that "tax cuts pay for themselves." Although Ronald Reagan said that, he did not seem really to believe it, as he enacted many tax hikes during his tenure to stem the growing deficits his cuts produced. (And, no, the deficits were not due to Democrat spending, as Reagan's budget proposals and the actual total budgets passed differed in aggregate by less than one percent).
During the Great Recession, the right-wing has seized upon the deficits -- caused largely by the recession itself, the unfunded wars they lied us into, an unfunded Medicare benefit and that "tax cuts pay for themselves" nonsense that Bush adopted -- to press for radical cuts to national investments and spending.
The current economic nostrum has been, "
the Bush Recession has forced everyone to tighten their belts. When the American people have to tighten their belts, government has to tighten its belt too."
That this, too, is nonsense is best highlighted by right-wing claims that cutting defense spending as required by the law they themselves passed will cost one to two million jobs. Really? I thought they have instructed us that government spending causes us to lose jobs.
Nonetheless, the simplicity and superficial logic of the "belt-tightening" analogy has been quite powerful psychologically, an impenetrable barrier to discussion of pragmatic economic policies.
With a small tweak, however, the president can seize the analogy and use it to breach that barrier to pragmatism. It would now read like this:
"The Bush recession has forced the American people to tighten their belts. But, if everyone tightens our belts at the same time, it cuts off blood supply to the legs. So, when people are tightening their belts, government loosens its belt to supply oxygen and nutrients to the legs that keep our economy moving, by investing in such items as roads and bridges. Then, when the American people are able to loosen their belts, government tightens its belt."
[Of course, the right-wing will say, "but government never tightens its belt." To that, just say that that is certainly true of Republicans, but not Democrats and point to President Clinton's surpluses. They won't keep that one up for very long.]
Winning the messaging war is an important achievement. Not only does it provide the clear choice that resonates with peoples' psyches for the election, but it also serves as psychological underpinning for adopting sound economic policies.
That would be the best prescription of all.
Follow Paul Abrams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/pabrams2001
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
By "belt tightening" and "government spending," they never mean any of the major price tags. They always mean, and have always meant, "shafting the poor and the middle class."
Only people like Ron Paul would say that an expenditure level from 1965 was a relevant number in absolute terms.
So, the belt-tightening is relative. If you want to employ the analogy, a teenager may tighten his belt to 28, but a 50 year-old may tighten it to 36, but in both cases they may have lost weight and are engaged in belt-tightening.
UTTER NONSENSE. Seriously, where do you come up with these obvious and demonstrable lies? Have you gotten so accustomed to just pulling things out of your ..... that you actually believe them?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
See that part where this year's federal spending as a percentage of GDP is 24.1%. In the evil GWB administration, it was less for every year except one. In fact, every single administration over the last 50 had a lower spending as a % of GDP than currently. But I suppose making your own reality is the only way to justify your completely ridiculous policy arguments.
View their history, view their voting record, see what legislation they support and oppose.
If we had judged BO on his record last election, Hillary would have been the Dem candidate.
I invite Paul Abrams and anyone who actually buys this snake oil he's selling to read the analysis under myth No. 2 in this post: http://right-winggenius.blogspot.com/2011/08/five-left-wing-myths-about-economy.html. For further study, see how "belt-tightening" austerity measures, combined with tax cuts, have worked across the Atlantic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQu7V9pMK48 and http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2012/05/two-kinds-austerity/596441. If you're still not convinced, then at least try and answer my initial question.
Please provide a single instance of Paul Ryan ever claiming that raising taxes on the middle class was part of his advocated policy.
(2) Apparently there is some problem with one of the links I included in support of my original comment. Please click on the following: I invite Paul Abrams and anyone who actually buys this snake oil he's selling to read the analysis under myth No. 2 in this post: http://right-winggenius.blogspot.com/2011/08/five-left-wing-myths-about-economy.html
infrastructure investments and
policies which put more money in the
hands of people who spend hand to
mouth, and, hopefully, loosening the reigns (imposed by state regulations) on small business entrepreneurs.
but, the Republicans are against it.
So, we are doing that--we are spending the entire federal budget on "welfare" (with the possible exception of interest on the national debt).
Thanks for the insight.
President Clinton's surpluses largely consist of a transfer of debt held by the public to intragovernmental debt. Overall public debt continued to INCREASE, not decrease... by about a trillion over his two terms.
The increase in tax revenues that led to paying down publicly held debt was due to the stock market bubble. That dangerous and unsustainable growth resulted from the financial-sector free-for-all that both Clinton and the Republicans pursued.
The bottom line is that even during a decade of great prosperity fueled by unsustainable and unnaturally rapid growth, overall public debt increased by some 20%... so yes, history shows that our "government never tightens its belt" during good times.
Here are the facts: Starting with the end of World War II, EVERY President, Republican and Democratic, reduced the "Debt-to-GDP" ratio (or, in the case of Gerald Ford, it didn't change) until President Reagan. Under Reagan, and again under George HW Bush, the "Debt-to-GDP" ratio increased. Then, President Clinton reversed it, and the "Debt-to-GDP" ratio declined. Under "W" the "Debt-to-GDP" ratio skyrocketed (he was not to be outdone by his dad), and that has continued under President Obama, although it will depend on whether he gets a second term or not to judge.
Nobody is making private Capital Investments in the USA, Job Growth is flat to negative.
No confidence in America at this time. Public Works does very little except get to next election.
Time to stop taxing Capital in America, nobody else does it, except USA.
http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Europe/capital-gains-tax
Who in Washington DC is brave enough to side with the majority of the American people? Who understands that the longer this intolerable situation drags on, that the hopes and dreams of all Americans are being crushed by the uncertainty of our leaders and their unwillingness to act fairly and decisively?
Our government is supposed to be "for the People," yet it appears to be "for the Paymasters" on Wall Street, and in the multinational corporations. This is intolerable! When will "We the People" stand up?
Maybe you could do like he did in the "you did not build that" ad and just claim you are doing a great job at limiting deficit spending.
Who knows? If you repeat this absurdity enough, people (especially du mb Dems) may believe you!