Taboo Question - Would Things Be Better Or Worse If Republican Proposals Were Implemented?

[Median Democrat]

We have heard some of the proposals:

1. No to the $800 billion stimulus package, including unemployment insurance and help to States.
2. No to Obama's $75 billion mortgage plan.
3. Just offer trillions of dollars more in tax cuts.
4. Balance the budget.
5. Impose a spending freeze.
6. Let U.S. banks fail.
7. Do not draw down troops from Iraq.

We have all offered various critiques of the Obama administration. He has either done too much or too little. However, you really can't judge Obama on the fact that we are in a recession. Its kind of like saying Abraham Lincoln was a terrible President because a civil war started under his watch. Likewise, you could say that FDR was a terrible President because the Great Depression continued to take place, and World War II took place under his watch.

The real question, and the reason why we regard Lincoln and FDR as great presidents, is how they performed under adversity over the span of their Presidency. The current media seems to be grading Obama on the fact that the recession is still ongoing in the 50th day of his Presidency.

The real question that is not often asked is where would we be if Republicans were calling the shots, and implementing their ideals. I listed some of the GOP proposals above. Now, how bad would unemployment be, and how bad would it get if Republicans got to implement their policies? Perhaps the DOW would be up as the overall welfare of the public sunk to new lows.

[baldguy]

1. Would things be better or worse with America as a feudal country?

With the GOP angling for the position as the nobility, of course.

[rurallib]

2. disastrous in my opinion

when did they say they wanted the budget balanced?
Anyway I think the reasons why have been discussed in great depth here.

[Median Democrat]

10. McCain Repeatedly Promised A Balanced Budget By The End Of His First Term

Sure, he might have been lying, but lets assume in an alternate universe, the Republican talking points actually became policy.

[orwell]

3. It's already been tried...

...it is essentially Hoover's response to the 1929 Stock Market crash.

How did that turn out?

[Uzybone]

4. Dow would be around 5,000, Unemployment 12-15%

Confidence would be zero, even the very rich would be pissed when the banks and AIG totally fail.

[rvablue]

5. Examining the last 8 years is a great jumping off point for you to come

to a definitive conclusion.

[vaberella]

6. Hah....We'd all be in line for gruel and no jobs. n/t

[Joe the Liberal]

7. We would be a third world country by now. n/t

[Zynx]

8. Absolute disaster.

The market performed badly under Bush. Why would it perform better now?

Just letting the financial system go like they have suggested would have driven unemployment up to probably 15% by now. Businesses would have failed at stunning rates.

[WinkyDink]

9. Is this a serious topic, after Bush/Cheney? I mean, REALLY??

[Median Democrat]

11. It Is Serious, Since Republicans Are In Blame Obama Mode - What's the alternative?

I don't think you can judge Obama in a vacuum, You need to compare him to the Republican alternative to properly critique him. How much better or worse would things be? This question is never asked. Instead, its Obama versus some utopian vision of America where there is no economic crisis or war.

[firefox28]

12. Well Known Economists

Have claimed that tax cuts give little Bang for the Buck. This includes Stiglitz, to some degree Krugman and others. Which economists back the Republican plan of tax cuts?

[craigmatic]

13. It would be worse if he listened to them. They'd only claim that he didn't cut enough taxes

Current repub policies were designed to fight stagflation in the 70's but even then they weren't successful. In the 1980's they cut taxes and the economy improved. In the 1990's bush and Clinton raised taxes and guess what? The economy improved. Tax cuts don't do diddly to improve the economy. Obama needs to cut more stimulus checks to poor people because they'll actually spend the money and that'll get demand going again and the repubs are doing their damndest to stop him from putting money into poor people's hands.

[Median Democrat]

15. Early 1980s Had A Rise In Unemployment and Fall In Dow, Also 1980s Were Keynesian Actually

Defense spending substantially increased under Reagan. It was great for me, because members of my family worked for several defense contractors. However, Republicans never seem to acknowledge that defense spending is government spending. Indeed, in the alternate universe the GOP lives in, Keynes only applies with respect to defense spending. Thus, whenever a military program is proposed to be cut (the F-22 for example), Republicans start complaining about job losses, even though just a minute before they were complaining that government spending has not created a single job.

[rasputin1952]

14. The GOP would allow the entire country to fail...

if they could pin it on President Obama.

We're talking about a once proud and honorable, (well at least somewhat), that has shown us nothing but disaster after disaster every time they have gained power since Nixon. These are not "real" Republicans, We're not talking TR/Eisenhower here, we're talking about a party that has been hijacked by thugs, and they know it...when was the last time you heard, "party of Lincoln?", they haven't used that in a few years, as there is no comparison anymore.

[Solomon]

16. What a crazy question. Are they getting to you?

I thought this was all settled by the election.

[Marrah_G]

17. Just because an Obama admin is better then a Repuke one does not make in infalliable.

To suggest that there are only two standards is either intellectually fraudulent or just the result of ignorance and a lack of critical thinking. .

[Median Democrat]

21. Were Lincoln and FDR Failures Because Wars Were Taking Place Under Their Watch?

Or, do we rate their Presidencies as great because of how they lead the country in adverse circumstances? For example, comparing the current economy and the two wars to the last few years of the Clinton presidency is unfair, because Obama inherited most of the current situation. Bill Clinton should not be judged by his initial years following Bush, Sr., but by the situation in the later years of his Presidency.

The corporate media and Republicans appear to be attacking Obama's presidency because we are still in an adverse economic situation less than 60 days into his Presidency. However, if this the standard, then Lincoln and FDR were also failures because the nation was in crisis during their Presidencies.

This is why the real question is how is Obama performing relative to the circumstances, and whether the Republican alternatives would result in a better outcome.

[Marrah_G]

22. Were they above being critized because of it?

Because that is what the real question is in the thread right?

That since Obama is better then mccain shouldn't we all just shut up and be thankful?

[Median Democrat]

23. Did I Say That? Seems Like You Are Creating A Strawman. Very Rovian

The real question in the OP is the question in the OP. Now, you could re-write it as "That since Obama is better then mccain shouldn't we all just shut up and be thankful?" then knock that question down, and feel very good about youself like a good little Republican, because that's what they do. They don't like addressing the actual questions posed, so they create new ones or distort the ones being presented.

As to whether FDR was criticized because of it, the WSJ has actually done that, and has attacked Obama by attacking FDR 60 years after the fact to claim that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression. So, in answer to your question regarding FDR, yes.

[Marrah_G]

27. "Very Rovian" right up there with invoking Hilter.

You automatically FAIL.

:eyes:

[Median Democrat]

28. Again, Another Straw Man. You Are On A Roll

:rofl:

[SalviaBlue]

18. Worse.

You really need to believe them when they show you who they are... and they have time after time.

The Con's have nothing to offer. We tried it their way and look what happened.

[dionysus]

19. i think its a rhetorical question.

[Median Democrat]

24. Not Necessarily - It Is A Choice Being Offered By Republicans

Republican policies typically fit on bumper stickers as noted by Rachel Maddow. They suck policy wise, but politically, they get a lot of kick:

1. No new taxes!
2. Drill baby drill! Drill Here! Drill Now!
3. Spending freeze!
4. Don't bailout losers!
5. Balanced budget!
6. Less government!

See? The slogans sound good, but could be politically disastrous if implemented. Yet, in the last election, and the 2010 election, these were the choices, and these will be the choices. Sadly, the Republicans appear to govern by pursuing policies that could fit in a bumper sticker. So, is my question rhetorical? Not really. Rather it is the choice the electorate faces.

[BeyondGeography]

20. With the Pubs, it's an open question as to whether ATM's would be dispensing cash right now

They would have moral hazarded us to death by now.

[harun]

25. Republicans are bluffing. If they were "really" going to get to implement

what they wanted it would be close to what Obama did, just favoring the rich instead of giving some help to the middle class.

There is no way in this economy they would really do what they say they would do.

[Median Democrat]

26. If So, Then The Media Is Giving Republicans A Free Pass

Which is the point of the whole OP. If the government actually implemented their proposals, which are designed to appeal to their base, then we would really be on our way to GD II if not worse. Yet, the media gives them a free pass, because the media never takes them seriously, because like you, we kind of assume that they are bluffing. However, as Bush and the John Yoo memos show, sometimes they actually are as crazy as they sound if not more so.

This is why I think it is such a travesty that the media does not clearly nail them on the real ramifications that would occur if their proposals were implemented.