Comments by "Jim Werther" (@jimwerther) on "LastWeekTonight"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JachAnen
It would probably take a 10,000 word article to address all the nonsense Oliver said here. I can give an example or two, but obviously I can't write for hours. Nor would you likely want to read it.
Okay, here goes:
1. Oliver's opener is totally made up, where he says that Americans are absolutely obsessed with the national debt. That is as false as it can be. Conservatives sometimes bring up the debt as a concern - although certainly moreso during Democrat presidencies, no question - but they raise the issue because otherwise no one pays it any mind. If anyone cared about the debt, would president after president keep spending outrageously? Politicians, like the public at large, are rational actors. If outrageous spending hurt their electoral chances, they wouldn't spend outrageously. Yet they all do. Because, ultimately, very few people care.
2. Oliver claimed that economists all agree that Obama's spending in 2009 was too little, and he should have really blown it out. If Oliver believes that, then every economist he has ever spoken with supports Bernie Sanders for president. In fact, many economists believe that the Obama "stimulus" bill delayed the recovery. A Forbes article in 2012, which identified more than 70% of economists as Democrats, found that most economists believed that Obama's 2009 blowout spending hurt more than it helped.
3. Oliver's attack on Stossel was not only disingenuous, it was essentially contradicted by Oliver's own words. As Oliver noted, economists everywhere believed that the insane spending of the last decade would lead to a terrible inflation situation, and no one is terribly sure why inflation hasn't happened - yet. (Even the most wild-eyed Keynesian doesn't believe that we can spend north of 100% of the GDP yearly without inflation happening at some point.) When Greece got hit with hyperinflation, the necessary cutbacks led to the street riots Stossel showed in his video, excerpted here. Stossel's only mistake was the same one made by every economist, as Oliver notes, in believing that high inflation would have already occurred a few years back. What happens when high inflation does happen? Cutbacks, and Greek-style rioting.
4. Oliver's claim that Reagan's budgets caused revenue to decrease in the 1980s, thus leading to increased debt, is a combination of highly misleading and outright false. The misleading part is him leaving out that the House was run by Democrats for all eight years; in most of those eight, the Democrats immediately declared Reagan's spending cuts "dead on arrival". Had Reagan been able to implement his budget, the spending would have been significantly lower.
The false part was Oliver claiming that revenue decreased under Reagan; didn't happen. The economy boomed under Reaganomics, thus leading to a significant increase in tax revenue, which is what happens when the economy does well.
****
Okay, I gave you four examples, more than I thought I would. There is much, much more that I left out. Know, though, that Oliver is hardly a reliable source for much of anything, based upon what I just watched.
1
-
1
-
@JachAnen
Yeah, no.
The stuff you referenced would be the sort of thing that Oliver could use a fig leaf. Doesn't make any of it accurate.
The internet is a big place. You can find articles supporting any theory, including the earth being flat and 9/11 being a false flag operation by the CIA. Doesn't mean much.
1. The US being "totally obsessed" about the national debt is not "hyperbole"; it's entirely false. Feel free to Google as many articles as you wish listing survey results of the electorate's concerns; Republicans, Democrats, Independents, anyone. Go find one where the national debt is listed in anyone's Top Five. You probably won't find a list where the national debt gets mentioned at all. No one really cares much, whether or not they should.
2. The Chuck Jones article to which to linked is, frankly, a howler. It is so obviously absurd, starting with the headline about Obama's 2009 "Stimulus Bill" "Kicking Off Ten Years Of Growth", that no one with an open mind and even a hint of an economics background would take it seriously.
In fact, I almost immediately ran into an article about how Forbes is something of a joke, and how did the author demonstrate his point, out of thousands of Forbes articles? By tearing to shreds that one specific article, pointing out how inocherent it is. I hope you read the article. In that I am not able to provide links here, I can just supply basic info which you can Google:
Publication: Mythfighter
Date: July 12, 2019
Title: How Forbes Magazine Misleads The Public
The other link you provided similarly was as unscholarly as a piece can get. Why? Deciding a president's economic grade based upon how the economy did while he was in office makes zero sense. None. The reasons are many and varied.
A. What economic conditions did he inherit?
B. Who ran Congress at the time?
C. What independent, outside factors affected the economy?
D. Do they really believe that the president's actions affect the economy on Day One of his presidency, and cease to matter the moment he flies off to retirement in Marine One?
Reagan, for example. He inherited a double whammy of high inflation and high unemployment, a disastrous situation. The fact that the economy had recoved by 1983, and was a rocket a year later, was nearly miraculous. Are we holding Reagan responsible for the two years it took to turn things around?
Another example - Bill Clinton. Clinton ran as a centrist "New Democrat", who would be very different than the old liberals. In his first two years, though, Clinton governed as an old Democrat, with tax and spending hikes. The economy, still in a bounceback from the Bush recession, continued to improve, but very slowly. Dissatisfaction with Clinton was rampant, and the GOP routed the Democrats in the 1994 midterms, capturing both the House and the Senate. Clinton got the message, and began what his advisers called "triangulation", midway between Democrats and Republicans. Republican speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was so powerful, that in 1995 Clinton astonishingly insisted to the media that he was still "relevant". The following year, Clinton said in his State of the Union Address, "The Era of big government is over". At the same time that Bill Clinton was working with the Republican Congress to cut spending programs, the internet was exploding, which gave the economy a massive boost. As a result, the yearly deficit actually disappeared at one point.
So, how much of that was Clinton? This gets complicated, see?
(By the way, to be fair, the credit card, which had been a minor part of the 1970s economy, became a standard household item starting in the 1980s, used for everyday purchases for thr first time. Did that help boost the economy in the 1980s? Of course it did. Did Reagan have anything to do with that? Not much.)
Anyway, there is a library of evidence that low taxes boosts production, and high taxes strangles it, every time, everywhere.
This is getting too long. Tbc...
1
-
@JachAnen
Continued....
3. Stossel got his prediction of high (or perhaps hyper-) inflation wrong, but, as mentioned, so did virtually all the economists. Stossel's prediction of riots in case of cutbacks - assuming Oliver represented Stossel's video accurately, which I probably should not assume - has not been proven anything, not yet, anyway. As far as your asking where the cuts would come from, the inevitable answer is that most of it would have to come from "entitlements", the way Reagan's and Clinton's/Congress's did. Why? Because that is where most of the money is spent, and that is what is causing the deficits. Some folks love to focus on military spending and foreign aid, but both are small percentages of the budget, and neither could be significantly cut without major, real life repercussions.
4. Reagan and Tip O'Neill fought like cats and dogs. It was not well known at that time that the two of them actually had a fondness for each other when they weren't at each other's throats; I know I was stunned to hear about it later.
Hedrick Smith, a highly respected Washington D.C. reporter, wrote some very well received books back in the day, the most famous probably being "The Russians". Smith's 1989 book, "The Power Game", provided an astonishing insider's view of - as the subtitle reads - "How Washington Works". "The Power Game" got rave reviews everywhere; it comes across as if Hedrick Smith was present at every important meeting during the Reagan presidency. Why do I mention this? Because I have a copy of the book, which you can probably find somewhere online; Smith describes at length how Reagan and Tip O'Neill went at it like heavyweight prizefighters for years.
Here is a news article from the Washington Post, written in 1986:
Reagan Budget Declared Dead Before (the rest of the headline is cut off, I don't know why)
By Helen Dewar
January 11, 1986
For each of the past several years, President Reagan has sent a new budget to Capitol Hill, and Congress has promptly pronounced it DOA -- dead on arrival.
This year, with the drama over the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings balanced-budget act beginning, the early reaction is different: Most Republicans as well as Democrats have declared the administration's budget DBA -- dead before arrival.
"If it's last year's budget with another $15 [billion] to $20 billion in cuts added to it, with no major policy changes, then it clearly won't work," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), reflecting indications of what the budget will contain. "It can't fly, and it won't fly."
Asked if he agreed, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said, "Almost everyone agrees on that." House Armed Services Committee Chairman Les Aspin (D-Wis.) was even more emphatic. "It's cold turkey, done, finished, dead, gone," he said. "They might as well just save the paper."
The fiscal 1987 budget that Reagan is scheduled to submit to Congress Feb. 3 is expected to include spending cutbacks of at least $50 billion to meet the $144 billion deficit target of the recently enacted Gramm-Rudman-Hollings legislation to force a balanced budget by fiscal 1991.
More than half the savings are expected to come from recycled domestic cutbacks that Reagan proposed and Congress rejected in past years, such as elimination of the Small Business Administration and federal subsidies for the Amtrak rail passenger service. Leaks indicate the rest will be made up from a variety of equally controversial new cutback proposals, including "privatization" of government activities ranging from sale of petroleum reserves and power authorities to abandonment of agricultural extension services and shutdown of the Interstate Commerce Commission.
The budget is considered virtually certain to include a defense-spending increase of at least 3 percent above inflation and restoration of funds cut from Reagan's military buildup. Just as certainly it will not include a tax increase, White House officials say. Thus, the burden of deficit reduction would be put on domestic programs, which Congress will want to protect, especially in an election year.
Although the prevailing opinion in Congress is that such a budget won't be taken seriously, some disagree, contending that election-year politics as well as the rigorous deadline pressures of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings legislation will contribute to a longer life for the Reagan budget than many of their colleagues assume.
Some House Democrats are reluctant to bury Reagan's budget until they publicize its least popular components -- "until we've kicked it around for a while," as one Democratic aide put it.
But, in any case, Reagan's budget is "not going to be forgotten quickly as it was in the past," said Rep. Leon E. Panetta (D-Calif.).
"It may be dead on arrival," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), "but it's not unheard of to have a viewing of the corpse."
House Budget Committee Chairman William H. Gray III (D-Pa.) is among those who are are in no hurry for a funeral. "I think we're going to have to take a good hard look," probably including extensive hearings, he said.
Others, such as Senate Finance Committee Chairman Bob Packwood (R-Ore.) contend that difficulties in reaching Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit targets, coupled with frequent deadlines for action to comply with the legislation, may give Reagan leverage he would not otherwise have.
At least at the start, Reagan can probably enforce vetoes of measures that defy his budget, possibly resulting in termination of 10 to 20 programs and drastic cutbacks in many others, Packwood said.
But even those who expect to give more than passing attention to Reagan's budget do not expect its substance -- "leftover hash with some hot sauce on top," as a Senate Republican aide described it -- to be any more acceptable to Congress than were many earlier budgets.
And Reagan's leverage to force his budget priorities on a reluctant Congress is weakened by the fact that if automatic spending cutbacks are triggered by Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, they will fall equally on defense and domestic programs.
Thus, a stalemate from a veto confrontation would threaten the defense programs that Reagan wants to protect as much as the domestic programs he wants to cut.
"If he starts vetoing appropriations or revenues tax increases as part of a budget package, then he's inviting both Congress and the administration to hit the wall," Panetta said.
The possibility of automatic budget-slashing increases pressure on all sides for serious, high-level negotiations on an early budget compromise that might include tax increases as well as spending cuts, according to many lawmakers.
But they expect weeks if not months of delay before the threat of automatic cutbacks in mid-October brings the administration to the bargaining table. Some don't expect an accord even then.
A few are worried that a "dead-before-arrival" budget that arouses congressional antagonisms will head off any movement toward compromise. "The past has shown that budgets just set the stage for a lot of game-playing," Panetta said. "But once you send up a budget that isn't serious, it begins to undermine the ability to put a compromise together. And in an election year, it gets mean awful quick."
That's the article. So much for everyone getting along.
Lastly, the fact that federal revenue increased under Reagan is not in dispute. It was 75% at the end of his presidency than in his first year. That statistic can be easily found in sources everywhere.
Damn, this is getting way too long. Remember that I only focused on a small number of Oliver's deceptions.
1
-
@JachAnen
I can tell you that it is frustrating for me to watch videos like this one. I know more about both economics and politics than does the average viewer; watching Oliver spin wild tales to the unknowing aggravates me.
If this were Bernie Sanders, people would instinctively understand that the host is pushing a one-sided viewpoint, one not necessarily based upon facts. Same situation for a "Fox and Friends" video. But those who don't know better - specifically Oliver's demographic, the young 'uns - probably buy Oliver's BS wholesale.
1. His "debt obsession" lie may not matter in the long run, but it's not just hyperbole. It's a lie, and it sets the table for what's coming.
2. The Forbes article I quoted wasn't particularly ideological; the point of it was to announce that 70% of economists are Democrats, more than they had assumed. The article mentioned, almost in passing, that while a small majority believed that Obama's "stimulus" brought job growth, a similarly small majority thought that the cost was more than the benefit. I only brought it as a refutation of Oliver's false claim that economists across the board now believe that Obama's stimulus was too small, which is simply untrue. Not every economist is a Bernie supporter, as I mentioned above. Oliver must know that.
I lived through Reagan. He became POTUS when the US was going through a major identity crisis. We had gone through a string of terrible presidents for some time before Reagan was elected. The Soviet Union seemed ascendant, the US seemed weak. Unemployment was high, and so was inflation. Brand new terms were invented to describe how bad the economy was - "stagflation", "misery index". What Reagan accomplished in two years was near-miraculous: Absolutely no one thought anything close to such results possible, prior to the start of his presidency. Reagan took very decisive action, much of it unprecedented, and a stunning turnaround resulted, both in US standing on the world stage and in the domestic economy. Not the sort of thing that can be easily chalked up to outside factors, even if some outside factors always play a part.
Raising taxes on companies is the equivalent of raising taxes on consumers, except politicians can make believe otherwise by claiming that they are targeting corporations. Who pays those taxes? Disproportionately poor people. Just saying.
If taxes on yachts are raised from 1% to 2%, the government makes money, but we are far past 2% tax on anything. Rich folks already pay more tham half their money in taxes; every time taxes get raised, the fallout is not what you're looking for. This is a long, long conversation. I will say the following: If you really want to learn about basic economics and the free market, and why socialism can never and will never work, then listen to "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell, the brilliant and fascinating economist and political philosopher. The book can be purchased online, or you can listen to the first half of it for free right here on YT. Prepare to be dazzled; I would love to hear your thoughts on the other side.
To focus on one specific point briefly: People do not risk money unless there is the chance of substantial payoff on the other side. When the government raises the cost of doing business, then the result is less business. The left does not understand the nature of business, and how hyper-competitive it truly is. They assume that a tax hike on corporations or on the wealthy leads to more government revenue. It rarely works that way, though.
Tbc....
1
-
@JachAnen
Continuing....
Stossel is hardly a "typical journalist", an unfair characterization (which surprises me, because you are not an unfair guy by nature). Stossel is one of the best journalists around, actually, although he gets things wrong, like we all do. But he won a whole lot of Emmy Awards, before realizing that his understanding of economics was lacking; he then essentially traded in his career for a far less lucrative one in order to more properly address issues. That takes a lot of dedication to the truth, as well as a selfless nature.
Just after your "typical journalist" comment, you then underscored precisely Stossel's point, ironically: By expanding the welfare state to a point where a large percentage of the population is fully dependent on it, we will eventually lead to street riots once the inevitable cutbacks happen.
**
Let me note a few things here:
* Writing comments without the ability to link to outside sources makes this rather challenging on my end. I assure you that I would have linked to material already, such as the Forbes article we've discussed, were I able to. Also, typing on an old, broken Galaxy S7 doesn't make my job any easier either.
* I listed four examples of Oliver twisting the truth, out of probably two dozen choices, easy. While we have both followed up on those four, please understand that I could take apart nearly every word he said in this video. This is a bunch of leftist propaganda masquerading as comedy.
* I certainly do appreciate your willingness to engage without rancor. I hope you don't mind that yes, in some way I'm pulling rank based upon age and experience. Speaking of which...
* I really, really hope you are open to learning from the Philosopher King himself, Thomas Sowell. The man is a prolific writer, having authored a couple of dozen books and thousands of articles, having also been a longtime economics professor, and having been involved in numerous other projects along the way. Less than a year ago, on his 90th birthday, Sowell released his latest book, and did a few interviews to promote it as well (he generally keeps a rather low profile these years). So I could point you to many of his writings or videos; I could also mention others, like a Ben Shapiro. But for someone who has the patience to hear out a well-developed thought in full, Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics" is as good a place to go as any. Just search for it on YT, and enjoy.
JW
1
-
@JachAnen
It is rather challenging typing on this machine, so I will try to keep this short. (New numbering....)
1. I found the 2012 article I referenced, and I got two things wrong. A) It was 538, not Forbes. B) The economists polled overwhelmingly believed that Obama's stimulus helped, while a small majority believed that the negatives outweighed the positives. And yes, 71% were Democrats. And 2012 is three years after 2009.
2. Economics is far more interesting than you realize. But if you are nonetheless unwilling to give "Basic Economics" a try, then at least give some Thomas Sowell interviews a shot. Or watch his television appearances from decades ago, also to be found all over YT.
3. Based upon this video, I am hardly inclined to go search out more John Oliver. If you want to send me a link to one you think worthwhile, go right ahead. But I assure you that this one here is straight propaganda, even if I am not going to type for six hours straight in order to more fully demonstrate the point. I have followed politics for decades, and am better informed on it than most. I actually teach Econ, although at a low level. I am not super-knowledgeable on ecnomics, but certainly better informed than either John Oliver, or 99.99% of YT commenters. Oliver's claims are BS. I wish I could debate him in front of a live audience, and force him to back up his many false and misleading claims. He would not be able to do so.
As to riots, events of the last 10.5 months have demonstrated that some folks will use any opportunity to riot, no matter how specious. Major cutbacks in welfare benefits couldn't lead to riots? I wish.
1
-
@JachAnen
Well, I'm on a replacement phone now, which works, so that helps. But I still can't provide links, though, because that is a YT thing, not a phone thing.
I wouldn't know if you are simply ignorant of basic politics (and economics), and trust what the leftist media feeds you, or if you are a true believer in your own right. But your basic reaction has been to assume that whatever John Oliver and the leftist media feeds you is correct until proven otherwise, and whatever I - or other conservatives, presumably - say is incorrect, until proven otherwise. Tough audience. There is a reason that conservatives know that we are forever playing on the opposition's turf, with all the referees supplied by the opposition as well. It requires us to sharpen the message, but at a certain point we can't win, no matter what.
According to 538, certainly not a conservative site, most economists in 2012 felt that Obama's stimulus plan hurt more than it helped, and 71% of those economists were Democrats. But you dismiss that as irrelevant.
Oliver lied when he said that tax receipts went down in the 1980s. But that doesn't speak to Oliver's credibility in your book, because...you don't care? I'm not really clear on that one.
Oliver also lied in his basic premise about Americans "total obsession" about the debt, but that also doesn't matter to you....just because, I guess.
You could literally point to anything Oliver said in that video, and I would be happy to respond. Unless it is part of the 10% he said which was accurate, I could tear him apart. But apparently you expect me to type out a 10,000 word dissertation here, addressing every word he said, with the understanding that you just may decide to disbelieve it nonetheless. And you think that is reasonable? I picked a few of his lies, I addressed them, you didn't care. You want me to now spend many more hours on this? Again, you can can still choose your favorite Oliver claim for me to expose as false, but it is absurd for you to expect me to spend dozens of hours here, writing a freaking book, for no obvious payoff.
Lastly, your lack of understanding of basic economics is fine, and hardly makes you into a bad person, but it is quite evident nonetheless. Are you willing to lift a finger to educate yourself on the matter? Nope. You'd rather buy Oliver's lies.
Okay, what exactly did you expect me to do here?
1
-
@JachAnen
That was a lot of anger, but no facts.
You wrote about half a dozen falsehoods in your comment just above, but you know what? I'm tired of it. Go ask your local physics professor how often someone tries to convince him that Einstein was wrong about E = MC^2. They get tired of it as well. Me? I don't argue with physics professors, because I don't know physics.
Many people, however, overestimate their own knowledge and abilities, and everyone thinks they know politics, most of them having only been exposed to one side of the story. You have made many bad assumptions here, but, most importantly, you have demonstrated a lack of interest in the facts. You don't have to listen to me, or Thomas Sowell, or anyone else. I just wish you hadn't misled me into wasting my time by presenting yourself as having an open mind.
By the way, I'd never heard of GOP.com. It boggles the mind that you are now unable to find an article on 538. Then again, you got everything else wrong in your most recent comment, so who's counting?
You want to be a closed-minded leftist, it is a free country, at least for your side of the aisle. But be honest with yourself and others, and don't act as if you give a fig for the facts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RayasNegroOvejas
You're asking a lot. I would have to write a 5,000 word piece.
I'll give one example out of dozens: John Stossel mentioned Greece, which had to implement massive cutbacks due to out-of-control inflation. Stossel said that wild spending here would eventually lead to the same situation, with the same results.
And yet, despite massive spending, inflation has not spiked. Stossel was not wrong when he said that hyperinflation would lead to cutbacks, which would lead to rioting. It hasn't happened yet, because - as Oliver himself noted - we don't know why! So no, Stossel did not get anything wrong which every mainstream economist didn't also get wrong; the rest of his prediction comes when inflation spikes, whenever that finally happens. Yet Oliver painted Stossel as some sort of goof, ignoring the part where the economists agreed with his inflation prediction.
That's just one. See, this could get really long.
Oliver also misrepresented the thinking of economists in general, and the records of Presidents Reagan, HW Bush, Clinton, W Bush, Obama, and Trump. He misrepresented the backstory of the tea party. He misrepresented the historical results of democratic socialism. He misrepresented the Biden spending plans. He misrepresented the part about education spending. And that's just off the top of my head.
1
-
1