I dunna, Hood. Bush had some pretty crappy spokespersons too.

Predictably, Robert Gibbs has no earthly idea what he’s talking about. Larry Kudlow, on the other hand, nails it:

Let me be very clear on the economics of President Obama’s State of the Union speech and his budget. He is declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds. That is the meaning of his anti-growth tax-hike proposals, which make absolutely no sense at all — either for this recession or from the standpoint of expanding our economy’s long-run potential to grow.

Raising the marginal tax rate on successful earners, capital, dividends, and all the private funds is a function of Obama’s left-wing social vision, and a repudiation of his economic-recovery statements. Ditto for his sweeping government-planning-and-spending program, which will wind up raising federal outlays as a share of GDP to at least 30 percent, if not more, over the next 10 years.

Study after study over the past several decades has shown how countries that spend more produce less, while nations that tax less produce more. Obama is doing it wrong on both counts.

And as far as middle-class tax cuts are concerned, Obama’s cap-and-trade program will be a huge across-the-board tax increase on blue-collar workers, including unionized workers. Industrial production is plunging, but new carbon taxes will prevent production from ever recovering. While the country wants more fuel and power, cap-and-trade will deliver less.

The tax hikes will generate lower growth and fewer revenues. Yes, the economy will recover. But Obama’s rosy scenario of 4 percent recovery growth in the out years of his budget is not likely to occur. The combination of easy money from the Fed and below-potential economic growth is a prescription for stagflation. That’s one of the messages of the falling stock market.

This is war.

Good to see the Obama admin isn’t going to pussy out like Clinton’s people did.

Conservatives are writing their own obituary.

AV,

As usual, you’ve covered only a conveniently modest portion of the truth.

According to the US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, between 1941 and 1946, the total US non-institutional civilian labor force averaged approximately 54 million. During the same period approximately 10 million men were drafted through the Selective Service system, while another 6-7 million enlisted. In other words, the number of men who served in the military during WWII represented nearly 30% of the civilian labor force. The unemployment rate for 1945 was 14.6%, while for 1945, the last year of the war, it was 1.9%. Incidentally, prior to 1947, the civilian labor force included “persons 14 years of age and over” thus making the military an even larger percentage of what we would consider to be the civilian workforce today. That was changed to 16 years of age in 1947.

In other words, the real impact of the war on the US economy wasn’t just deficit spending by the government, but the enormous boost to employment via military service, the majority of which came about due to the draft. With so large a percent of the total population in uniform, unemployment dropped dramatically, while labor productivity increased correspondingly.

The problem with govt spending is that it is often too little, too late, like BHO’s spending will probably be.

No, the problem with govt spending beyond the limitations of what is necessary for the proper operation of the private sector is that it’s wasteful and unproductive. It sucks up money that would be used better by free people making free choices to generate profits. This is why big govt spending programs always fail. Always.

This guy could be the worst spokesperson in the history of White House spokespeople. He’s truly awful.

If Rush is wrong in his assessment, then there should be an example somewhere to prove the point, an prior instance when massive federal deficit spending worked to bring the economy back from recession, and at the same time didn’t cause the inflation, high interest rates, and economic stagnation being predicted.

The problem for the Left is that there is no such example. Period.

Of course increasing govt spending works, Reagan himself used that trick. (While cutting social spending, he increased military spending so there was a net increase.)

The problem with govt spending is that it is often too little, too late, like BHO’s spending will probably be.

Bat One: I keep having to remind you, the build-up to WWII is very strong proof of the effectiveness of govt spending. FDR’s earlier token efforts were simply too small.

That’s like saying “I don’t want that skydiver to die, I just don’t want his parachute to open.”

No, in this case it would be “I know that parachute is defective. I’m going to do my best to keep the retard from jumping out of the plane.”

The parachute in this case is Obama’s plan and jumping out of the plane is Obama’s schemes becoming law.

So many blogroach droppings. So little time.

FDR’s earlier token efforts were simply too small.

FDR’s earlier efforts undermined what would have been a much quicker economic turnaround (probably by 1935, 1936 at the latest). It did so by propping up wages and prices, which interfered with the natural recovery process.

The same thing can happen again with Obama, if he manages to prop up failed companies and keep home prices artificially inflated. An exact repeat is impossible because FDRs “National Industrial Recovery Act ” was deemed unconstitutional two years after it was instituted.

More here.

The problem with govt spending is that it is often too little, too late, like BHO’s spending will probably be.

You mean too much, too much.

Obama’s entire plan (more of his socialistic agenda) is about giving away money we don’t have to deadbeats while you are punishing people who make things work.

In fact Obama’s tax plans will reduce the incentive to try while making it much much harder to succeed through his socialistic labor laws and environmental laws.

There is NO logical basis to think that that can succeed.

HG,

Your explanation of “stagflation” is accurate, concise, and pertinent. Why not forward it to Mr. Gibbs at the White House? Obviously, neither he, nor anyone else up there, has the faintest idea about any of this economics stuff.

You’d like to think that the Democrats won’t win the war lying all the time.

Conservatives follow Obama more closely than his own fellow leftards do, do analysis, and respond based on their political and philosophical views on what Obama puts out.

Obama acts like Dino does with Bush, and keeps obsessing about what Rush said WEEKS ago.

It shows a very fragile ego for any prez to have.