GOP campaign: 'U.S. economy robust'

ho ho ho ho ha ha ha ha !!!!!

Republicans are idiots. Their followers who believe their policies work are even bigger idiots.

I think once the election was over they forgot they had a website...or maybe all those tubes and wires are too confusing?

I can't say the economy was robust but it was doing okay, until the banking fiasco, sub prime loans,and the Fannie mae and freddie mac debacle, in which most of these programs that were being run by the Democrats. Does anyone remember the likes of Chris Dodd,Barney Frank,and Maxine Waters,who all said there was nothing wrong with the housing industry. So,give me a break and put the blame where it belongs. And not on President George W. Bush.

The State of Denial - Population: Wingnuts.

The GOPer's can't help themselves, they've been shovelling this kind of BS for so long, it's hard for them to let it go and let the truth show.

It's only going to get worse for them as America will see how well things go now that these dinosaurs have been shown the door.

Somebody, please suggest this to our beloved elected officials:

Probably we should CHANGE the definition and the perception of the word "unemployed". Some economists recently argued that technological advances allow us to have a growing world economy, even as the workforce is decreasing and even if each human being on Earth (children, elderly and people who never worked, included), would receive 1000 euro and month, in today's money. After all, technological advances were implemented also in order to allow people to read more, to go to a concert, to do some painting, to take care of the children, to do some exercise, to enjoy life.
Dolphins "work" only two hours a day. Are humans at least as smart as dolphins? What do our beloved elected officials think?

Thank you.

GOP = IDIOTS!

It sure was nice of them to put it in writng for everyone to see.

Since the GOP is basically just a regional party at this point, it's important to point out that the regions we're talking about have been so poor, jobless, and contribute so little to America's economy (and have been that way for a long time) that the people living in these regions may not even be bright enough or informed enough to notice the difference in the economy.

The southern states are all welfare states at this point anyway. That's how they're exploited. They have terrible schools, no job opportunities, and their populace is incredibly ignorant and uneducated in comparison to the rest of the country.

They'll probably argue that the entire "economic crisis" is just a conspiracy dreamt up by the joos or something... that the economy is doing great.

The neanderthals who drool over Palin are probably ignorant enough to actually believe the economy is great, if they read it on a GOP website.

My 401K lost 41% under Bush.
I think he is a Republic.

Here's what the GOPers can't face;
Reaganomics died in 2008.
But!
It is still with us as 'Zombie Economics'.
In other words, Reaganomics is the 'undead' and will be propped up and artificially animated for a while before the real collapse takes it out.
Meanwhile the capitalists on Wall Street will get the rest of our money.

I hope 'Kruger'man is forwarding a copy to OHB.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/opinion/23krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

I hope 'Kruger'man is forwarding a copy to BHO.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/opinion/23krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Ivan,
Right you are. Red states get the biggest share of federal dollars. They just like to pretend to hate socialism.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

C.Morris....excellent job of sleuthing! I must admit, when I read Ivan's post I thought it was a pug in sheep's cloths, as it seemed a little harsh to come from a dem's mouth, but it does all seem to be true...sad to say. The swamp needs to do a story on the article you brought up with current figures, which I'm sure match the 2000 figures cited. For the Swamp's sake, I hope they use more pictures so that the pugs can follow along.

That’s very funny, Mr. Silva. Now why don’t you tell everyone the truth? The truth is that you had to spider the site or dig into someone’s cache of it to find that page. You can’t get to that “Issues” page from the home page, which is a good indication that the page is old and that the NRCC has long abandoned the position stated in it. You are just recycling old stuff for fun. That may have some propaganda value (as appears from the responses you have gotten here) but it neither honest nor news.
.
Oh, and BTW - You are no Walter Winchell either.

Paul - your defense of the GOP actually is still standing, with regards to Chris Dodd,Barney Frank,and Maxine Waters. A non-refutation means that your points still stands.

Still, the GOP should do itself a favor by updating the NRCC website. It hurts its credibility as it stands now.

Geesh - I would have they would at least have had a college intern to do temporary re-write on the site by now. How long will it look like this into next week?

* * * * *
Posted by: C.Morris✈ | January 23, 2009 9:33 PM
* * * * *
Posted by: Xcellentform | January 23, 2009 11:36 PM
.
Are either of you really naïve enough to believe that red states take more “socialist” federal spending based on the manipulation of the figures in that web site? For that to be the case, one would have to show that all federal spending is on nanny-state type welfare programs (NOT TRUE), that the government doesn’t pay its own employees (NOT TRUE), that it spends no money on defense and other contract work (DEFINITELY NOT TRUE), and that each state has an equal amount of per capita income (MOST DEFINITELY NOT TRUE). Remember, the purpose of the number game played on that site was to show how much money each state receives in relation to every dollar that it pays out in federal taxes. That figure will be immediately skewed against any large population state and those with the largest amount industries in the private sector that don’t get government contracts. The lower each state produces in per capita income means that it takes less money from the federal government to raise that ratio. Agriculture still doesn’t produce the same level of income as manufacturing. Guess which states are mostly agricultural versus industrial? Are we getting a feel for this yet?

John....I love how you take a good point, contort it to your views, and spit it back out as facts. Isn't one deffinition of socialism "redistribution of wealth"? Or is that just a battle cry for the pugs? Doesn't that article show this? Where is all that self sufficiency crap? Where is all that "let's keep the governement small" crap? Live within your means crap? I think the article is crystal clear, and uses numbers in their most condensed form. You choose to impart scenarios that are not part of that study. The article simply says which states pay and which ones recieve.

* * * * *
“The article simply says which states pay and which ones receive.”
.
Posted by: Xcellentform | January 25, 2009 5:59 PM
.
And that is exactly why it doesn’t support C. Morris’ conclusion that red states are hypocritically getting an undue share of “socialist” money. That is the flaw: It doesn’t say WHY the federal money paid funds to any particular state.
.
Not all expenditures by the federal government involve nanny-state or social welfare programs. Federal defense contract spending isn’t “socialist” welfare spending. Yet, that figure is included into calculating whether any given state is getting back as much as it puts in. The same is true of the money the federal government pays its employees, or what it forks out for research and development, roads, dams, energy facilities, levees (or anything else maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers), law enforcement, and all of its other constitutional functions. This stuff is not “socialist” spending because everyone benefits from it equally and it does not represent a redistribution of wealth simply for the sake of achieving someone’s idea of social justice. So, let’s be clear: The article does not show socialist wealth redistribution. It simply shows the ratio of what various states get back in federal spending OF ALL KINDS compared to what they paid out. Now, if the web site had broken down the federal expenditures by category, and isolated the payments from the Department of Health and Human Services and/or any of the other nanny-state institutions, it might have presented a more convincing case.
.
BTW - I am not limited to the facts mentioned on the web site. I can use my own brain and knowledge I have of federal spending to refute the inferences people seek to draw from the data in the manner they have packaged it.
.
Look at New Mexico, for example. The place ranks 36th in population, 38th in civilian work force, and 44th in personal income per capita. On the other hand, it ranks 35th in total federal expenditures and 9th in federal R & D obligations. So, are we really terribly surprised when the web site C. Morris found says that New Mexico ranks third in receiving more than it pays out because it gets $1.89 from the federal government for every $1.00 that it pays in taxes? Any state that has a small tax base but gets a lot of federal money for federal projects is going to register similar results. This is why it is critical to identify the various purposes for the federal funding, and why failing to do so undercuts the argument of red states getting all the “socialist” money.
.
I might also mention that when the federal government passes out nanny state money, the states don’t have any say in the matter. These are federal programs, voted on by elected officials in the federal government, and administered by federal bureaucrats. The states don’t have any power to prevent the federal government from distributing welfare-state benefits. If they had the power, I might agree to the existence of some hypocrisy to the extent they receive any social welfare money at all. And BTW, lest we forget, one state or a handful of states, regardless of their views, can easily be out-voted on these issues.
.
P.S. My views are not contorted. The reasoning process that took the data from that site as support C. Morris' desired conclusion is what was twisted and contorted.

JW,
Just as in; 'From each according to his ability. To each according to his need.'
The poor red states 'need'. The rich blue states 'pay'.
I'm not even saying it shouldn't be that way. I don't want nobody starvin'!

* * * * *
Posted by: C.Morris✈ | January 26, 2009 8:36 AM
.
I understand fully well what Marx and Lenin said about taking and giving. That’s not the point. Your first post directed criticism toward Red States by pointing out that they “get the biggest share of federal dollars,” meaning they only “pretend to hate socialism.” The unstated but intended sentiment is that they suffer hypocrisy regarding welfare-state spending.
.
My point was that the data presented on the web site you cited doesn’t support your conclusions or criticism. The site only tells us that some Blue States get fewer federal dollars spent on them per dollar paid in taxes, and that some Red States receive more federal money per dollar paid in taxes. For instance, it tells us that California is on the “losing” side of the equation because for every $1 paid in taxes it only gets back $0.81, whereas North Dakota is on the “winning” side because it gets $2.03 from the feds for every $1 paid in taxes. In short, the data only tells us the amount received in a ratio to that which is paid. It doesn’t tell us the amount of federal money paid to each state, the total amount paid to Red State’s versus Blue States, or the purpose for any of the federal distributions. These are all important omissions.
.
As I previously pointed out, as far as your argument goes, the most important omission is that it doesn’t tell us the purpose for the federal spending. That’s because not all federal spending represented in the site’s numbers reflect welfare-state (i.e. “nanny state”) spending. For spending to be “welfare” spending, it has to represent wealth redistribution for the purpose of achieving “social justice.” Such is not the case when money from the federal government is paid to fund federal projects that benefit everyone equally regardless of economic status. Thus, just because Montana receives money in a give-and-take ratio of 2 to 1 doesn’t necessarily mean that it represents “socialist” money. If the ratio is tilted in Montana’s favor because the federal government spends more there for stuff like national defense, highways, construction of waterways, and so on, then the charge of hypocritically taking socialism money (or too much socialism money) is false. This is why the site’s omission of this data robs your argument of any validity.
.
Furthermore, as I stated in response to Xcellentform, whatever the States receive and the proportion they receive it isn’t either the doing or the fault of the States themselves. Welfare programs are federally funded and operated, and the States have no power to stop or impede them.
.
BTW - I never meant to suggest that you want to hurt people. I have only replied to your claim that the data from the site support your claim of Red State hypocrisy, which it doesn’t.