Please Help me Smack A Wingnut Down

[SweepPicker]

Here is the wingnuts post slamming Obama:

Economy: 1. predicted an 8% unemployment max with his stimulus. It went over 10% and held there for months. 2. Is continuing to prop up housing costs 3. Has a monetary policy of printi...ng money, almost a guarantee of future inflation.
Energy policy: 1. wants to tax our oil companies while giving it to Brazil’s oil companies to the tune of $2,000,000,000. 2. Pushed cap and trade which would increase the cost of energy for everyone 3. Pushes alternative energy which is more expensive than traditional energy sources
Doesn’t appear to understand Law of Supply and Demand: 1. Subsidizes ethanol, less corn for food= higher food costs 2. Discourages oil production, less oil=higher gas prices 3. Sugar tariff, less sugar = higher food costs
Spending: 1. running a $1.3T deficit 2. Spending more than any President, ever. 3. Said he would propose a budget with tough choices and then submitted one with MORE spending 4. On track to add more than 10T to our debt
Lack of Presidential Gravitas: 1. Goes on ESPN to announce his bracket picks 2. Held a “beer summit” about a local dispute 3. Gave the Prime Minister a set of DVDs. In return he got a handmade pen made from the antislavery ship the HMS Gannet.
Entitlements: 1. No proposal to fix Social Security 2. No proposal to fix Medicare 3. Added Obamacare which will at BEST be deficit neutral by taking $500 Billion from Medicare and an additional $500 Billion from other taxpayers. The list can get much longer but this is 5 minutes worth.

Thoughts?

[rfranklin]

1. As usual, they cite a Republican failing and attribute it to the Dems...

With the 2012 presidential election already on presidential aspirants' front doorstep, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is hiking the campaign trail, stomping the path of ethanol subsidies.

Last Tuesday, the former Speaker visited the Renewable Fuels Association summit in Des Moines, touting the praises of ethanol and its progressive impact on the environment. He then tenderized the farm industry saying, “We have had a problem of farm income back to the 1890s and 1880s the fact is that every time the farmers start to do well someone starts to attack them.”
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/6175-ethanol-subsidies-newt-gingrich-and-the-2012-election

When the Republicans controlled Congress, they shied away from sugar reform, yielding to the power of the sugar growers' lobby.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8381

[rfranklin]

2. Neither Social Security or Medicare needs to be fixed....

Social Security has been fully funded for the next 30 years or so. A minor increase in the salary cap would take care of funding much further into the future.

The problem with projections of Medicare expenses is that we have health care costs that are about twice that of any other developed country with outcomes that are not significantly better. So the solution would be to control costs better. And that means better oversight of big pharma and health care providers. As we know, the present Republican governor of Florida was responsible for the biggest Medicare fraud in history. Curbing such crooks would help a lot.

[krispos42]

3. 8% unemployment... until the Repubes demanded that 40% of the bill be tax cuts

Oopsie on their part, as $1 of tax cuts creates about $0.40 of stimulus.


$1 of infrastructure spending produces about $1.40 worth of stimulus.

[Beaverhausen]

4. ask them who they think would do a better job and how that person would fix...

...the things listed. They will have nothing.

[mqbush]

5. You're bothering with this poop? If so, then say:

Econ 1. Obama didn't say 8%; some idiot in his advisory staff did. It sounded ridiculous at the time, and I couldn't believe it was allowed to stand.
Econ 2. Housing costs dropped quite a bit. How could Obama prop them up anyway?
Energy 1. Isn't Exxon supposedly American? It doesn't pay taxes like we do.
Energy 2. IF cap and trade actually raised energy costs, it would be for good; reducing carbon will save vastly more over the long haul than not reducing it, and costlier energy will intensify research into efficiency, conservation, alternatives.
Energy 3. Alternative energy includes hydro, which is dirt cheap, tidal and river flow generators, which could come in cheap after startup, wind and solar that have high startup costs but get cheaper over time until they're cheap enough to give away.
Supp and dem: 1. For now, until non-food biofuel souces are perfected.
" " " 2. This is only bad from a childishly short-sighted viewpoint. It forces us to develop alternatives, which is good in the long term.
" " " 3. (I don't know anything about a sugar tariff.)
Spending 1. So? Sovereign nations with fiat currencies don't even have to take on debt (See my post: "You have one hour to critique this...") When this stimulative spending gets the economy going, the payoff in tax revenues will be far superior to cutting ourselves to the bone and hunkering down waiting for fairy godmothers to save us.
Spending 2. Same as above.
Spending 3. And 4. Blah, blah.
LoPG: OMG! Remember Bush's dancing in Africa?
Ent. 1. No need to "fix" SS.
Ent. 2. Ditto Medicare
Ent. 3. This is one set of figures. Others say quite another thing. If nothing else, the cost saved by Americans overall over time will exceed any startup costs. Have to look at the big picture, not just at one set of figures.