Oink
Bookworm on Sep 10 2008 at 7:44 am | Filed under: Barack Obama, Sarah Palin
1st woman: Oh, my God. I’m so upset. I made the most horrible Freudian slip.
2nd woman: What happened?
1st woman: I was having lunch with my mother. I meant to say, “Please pass the toast,” and instead I said, “You horrible woman. You’ve ruined my life.”
***
“You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig,” Obama said during a town-hall style event here Tuesday night.
The comment played on Republican vice presidential candidate Palin’s joke during the Republican National Convention that the only difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom was lipstick.
Obama has been hammering the Republican ticket for adopting his change mantra. “This is a guy who supported George Bush 90% of the time. What does that say about somebody’s judgment that they agree with George Bush 90% of the time?” he said.
“You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called ‘change,’ it’s still going to stink,” Obama said. “After eight years, we’ve had enough of the same old thing. It’s time to bring about real change to Washington and that’s the choice you’ve got in this election.”
***
My mother, back in the 1950s: When’s your baby due?
Woman: I’m not pregnant!
***
Did Barack Obama mean to call either McCain or Palin a pig or a rotten fish? Certainly a lot of people think he did. I don’t. I think this was nothing more than stupid talk. After all, both the expressions he used (or variations thereof) are fairly common currency. We all know what they mean: no matter how you try to prettify or sanitize something, it is what it is. Obama was making the point that, pretty Republican campaign speeches notwithstanding, he believes that Democrats will fundamentally disagree with the actual policies, positions and promises underneath the fancy Republican wrapping. It’s a valid point in a political campaign.
So, now I’ve exculpated Obama from the charge that he intentionally called his opponents pigs and stinking fish. But I’m not done.
What Obama did was still stupid and crude. As the American Thinker points out, this derogatory, careless way of speaking is typical of Obama under pressure and off teleprompter. It bespeaks a man without an elegant mind, a man who thinks in crude and ugly terms.
The speech also probably has even stronger Freudian elements, given the fact that Palin associated herself with lipstick when she interrupted her convention speech (charmingly, I thought) to throw in her hockey mom joke: “What’s the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom? Lipstick.”) The fact that Palin’s husband was a commercial fisherman (with Palin helping to run that enterprise), no doubt strengthened the subliminal connection Obama felt when throwing around images of pigs in lipstick and stinking fish.
Lastly, it’s worth noting that Obama’s audience happily put it’s own spin on things. It roared when it heard the “pig in lipstick” statement, something it wouldn’t have done if it understood what it heard merely as a colorful phrase referring to putting too good a face on something. The roar came about because, whether intentionally or subliminally, Obama painted in their willing minds a picture of Pig Palin in Lipstick.
It’s easy to overblow this whole thing by making far-reaching accusations about Obama’s explicit intentions. Frankly, we’ll never know his explicit intentions. But we don’t need to go that far. We know two things from what he said: he’s a crude speaker when under attack and unprotected by speech writers, and his audience is joyously willing to put the worst, most unflattering spin on anything that slips unguarded from his mouth. That doesn’t speak well either for the man or his followers.
No related posts.
Email This Post To A Friend
34 Responses to “Oink”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Obama has shown us that he is very good at saying things without thinking through their implications (the mouth moves faster than the brain).
THAT will certainly help make us friends around the world.
Danny, I heard that McCain is on the record for having used the very same expression about lipstick on a pig to describe Hillary. I think your conclusion, therefore, should apply to him as well.
This discussion reminds me when in the 1980′s some Black students group tried to ban a set of books that contained the word “niggardly.” Learn the English language, including its idioms, lest you look like an uneducated fool.
Bookworm –
You are correct. I am more than willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and believe that he was merely using a standard phrase and was not referring to Palin as a pig.
But for the past several years, all we have heard is what an excellent speaker he is. His speaking abilities have been compared to Lincoln and even Dr. King (what?!?!?!). So how do he and his supporters explain how stilted and awkward he becomes when he is not standing in front of a teleprompter? Why is it possible to point to example after example of Obama saying something that he then had to go back and clarify or explain? Even Obama has admitted to regretting some of the things he has said.
To dwell on the porcine idea: Obama tends to be ham-handed in his off the cuff responses.
This is why the debates are going to be absolutely fascinating. It’s practically a given that Biden is going to embarrass himself. The real question will be whether Obama can answer the questions in a coherent fashion that makes anyone still believe that he is a gifted orator.
Deana
He wasnt calling Sarah Palin a pig, as the full context of his speech shows. I listened to it yesterday and saw what the McCain camp did with it, and wondered, once again, what has happened to John McCain?
I used to respect and admire the man and it saddens me to see him lose his integrity. But then again, the other John McCain lost the election and this one wants to win.
From Andrew Sullivan.com
So it’s come to this. The full context of Barack Obama’s quote is as follows:
“John McCain says he’s about change, too — except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics. That’s just calling the same thing something different.”
With a laugh, he added: “You can put lipstick on a pig; it’s still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change; it’s still going to stink after eight years.”
We are being asked to believe that he called Sarah Palin a pig. If the people making that accusation have half a brain they know it’s not true. This is not a question of interpretation. It is a fact. So we now find out again that John McCain is prepared to tell an absolute lie – in public, verifiable, uncontestable.
He does not have the minimal public integrity to be president of the United States. Game this all you want; distort it all you want; bamboozle the morons at cable news all you want; win however many news cycles you want.
This claim is absurd on its face, like the Palin nomination to begin with. Absurd. And you can now tell who on the right has even a scintilla of intellectual honesty. That’s all this episode is about: another tail-spin in the death throes of the Republican party.. . . .
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/pigs-and-lipsti.html
I think candidates become tired and make minor mistakes. Look at the multiple typos on most blogs, for example, especially those posted late at night.
Anyway, I’d rather see the occasional gaff from Obama who, like Bill Clinton, speaks in full paragraphs and appears a mile wide and a mile deep on the issues, rather than McCain who is seen making basic, grave mistakes (e.g., admitting that he knows very little about the economy, not knowing the leader of Iran, calling pre-surge Baghdad safe to walk around, conflating Sunni and Shia multiple times on his heralded trip to Iraq). The scene with Lieberman whispering the right names in his ear was a precious senior moment, don’t you think?
Funny, I don’t notice Obama speaking in full paragraphs, except on those occasions when someone wrote one for him: extempore he’s a horrid speaker. And he certainly doesn’t appear “deep” on any issue I can see. “Depth” is not expressed by an absolutely standard, unoriginal, out-of-the-box Chicago Democrat machine program. He’s your basic tax and spend liberal, with an unbelievable supply of arrogance. (The hubris it must have taken to write two autobiographies based on a life the salient facts of which would fit nicely on a postcard ought to, all by itself, serve as a warning to the rest of us.)
If John McCain knows “little” about the economy, then it is certain Barack Obama knows “nothing.” His prescription is the same idiot liberal one: raise taxes, spend more on social programs. History bounces right off him: JFK lowered rates: revenues rose. RWR lowered rates: revenues rose. GWB lowered rates: revenues rose.
Having apparently noticed none of this, Obama plans to raise rates. Attaboy, oh deep thinker!
Both of them are unimpressive (I don’t give a $%^$ whether at any given moment anyone can remember the difference between Shia and Sunni: to anyone but them the difference is like fighting over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and they both behave identically like idiots), but McCain has actually lived a life. Obama is at best a man-child, and has evidently been nowhere and done nothing – or at least if he has, he hasn’t told us about it.
So now, the excuse for mistakes is that candidates are tired.
OK. I believe that. I look at the pace that these candidates have been keeping and honestly wonder how they continue to stand upright. I know I wouldn’t have the stamina to do what Obama, Biden, Clinton, McCain, Palin, and so forth were and are doing.
But where was all of this understanding when President Bush said awkward things? I don’t recall anyone saying, “Wait, he must be exhausted.” No. Instead, the President was called an idiot. No one gave him an inch.
As I said earlier, I am willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and believe that Obama was merely using a common idiom. I don’t believe that he was referring to Palin as a pig. And to be honest, Obama does look tired. He probably hasn’t slept well for the past two weeks.
Of course, if this is what happens when Obama gets a little tired, what is going to happen if he becomes president?
DG – “Danny, I heard that McCain is on the record for having used the very same expression about lipstick on a pig to describe Hillary.”
“I heard…”…that’s the problem, DG – it goes to the heart of your credibility problem regarding all these charges you throw up against the wall. Why don’t you confirm it first and then get back to us with the documentation.
For those of us that live in Chicago and have been exposed to its black culture, we understand “code” talk among minorities.
The video of Obama delivering his lipstick-on-a-pig and “old fish” comments told me all that I need to know: Obama was playing the audience and it was all in the delivery. He knew exactly what he was saying to an angry black underclass audience using Rev. Wright-style of preacher talk and coded references, while providing himself plausible deniability with white people. He was being too clever by half.
Obama really shouldn’t complain about the uproar – it was the Obama campaign that was always attacking the Clinton campaign about their alleged “coded” dispersion against Obama’s race in Southern states like North Carolina, after all. That dog just simply won’t hunt.
>>I don’t give a $%^$ whether at any given moment anyone can remember the difference between Shia and Sunni: to anyone but them the difference is like fighting over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin>>
Ah yes. That Sunni/Shia thing. McCain wasn’t clear that he knew the difference. Maybe he didn’t. Before the Iraq war, neither did I. Circumstances are educational, unfortunately. On the other hand, Obama did. But then, if I went to an islamic school in my youth, and if one of my parents was actually muslim, I’d expect to know the difference as well.
But instead of giving recognition to that muslim background – and perhaps even claiming that it might give him an advantage in the present international situation, Obama denies it. That seems odd to me. Why would someone deny the obvious?
>>That dog just simply won’t hunt.>>
What’s that, Danny? You’re calling him a coon????
I’m outraged!!!
Deana, Bush has been on vacation at Crawford or Camp David for 40% of his Presidency. Look it up. He gets his hour work out in each day and allegedly sleeps 8 hours every night. He doesn’t get the pass that McCain and Obama get. And I worry more about McCain, in his 70s, slowing down than Obama.
Tiresias, I happen to personally know Obama’s chief economic advisor and can tell you that he is no radical liberal, nor is he an idiot. Obama’s economic team will be like Bill Clinton’s, which is to say it will make McCain’s team look like neophytes. Obama’s interviews (e.g., with Zakaria) are not the two sentence sound bites we too often see from politicians. I am not sure what you are keying on but Obama is much better off the cuff than McCain, in my opinion.
Danny, what credibility problem? Watch it and eat crow… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMPYkNQlJMM
Suek, except that when McCain confused it, we were already embroiled in a war that he signed off on having supposedly done his due diligence. I work in finance, and if after buying the stock I suddenly don’t remember what the company does or what the valuation is or what my original investment thesis is, I get fired or lose clients. That is the difference between my being held culpable by those entrusting me with their money, and voters like you willing to give your team/party a free pass. If you’d said that he made a mental gaffe but knew the difference between the groups, then that’d be fine. But you are willing to vote for him even if he was grossly negligent in supporting a war when he didn’t know what the risks of religious/tribal violence would be. Given your low standards, I’d be happy to invest your money for you…I have some great Chinese penny stocks to recommend…
Greetings:
I grew up in the Bronx in the ’50s and the ’60s. The two large demographics in our neighborhood were Jews and “Irish Catholics.” The term of art for guys like Senator Obama was “a Negro with a dictionary.”
Those were the days’ those were the ways.
Nice try, DG. Totally different context. McCain clearly wasn’t referring to “they”, he was talking about the HillaryCare plan. Thanks for the link, though.
Interesting that you work in finance, law, you’re close friends with Obama’s finance advisor, you have lots of time on your hands (apparently) and you have how many kids? Tell us more.
I have watched a video of the whole speech and believe he did want the audience to think of Palin when he talked of the pig and lipstick. Notice the pause, waiting for the audience to get it, then continuing on.
I think he was also trying to refer to McCain with his “old fish wrapped in new newspaper still stinks” line. Obama has spoken before about McCain wrapping himself in the Change banner. He gets both licks in here.
He also flipped the bird to Hillary during speeches as a scratch on the face. The finger was like the Seinfeld episode the waitress only gave to George.
The “lipstick” and “old fish” lines are like another Seinfeld episode. I don’t have the exact quote but….
“You know the mean things that someone says when they break up that you know they really didn’t mean. Well, he means them.”
Plausible deniability, it may be. But Obama did mean what he said and he meant the finger as well.
OK, so now we are supposed to believe that when President Bush goes to Camp David or Crawford, he doesn’t do much work.
I don’t know if anyone else out there has noticed but the President has aged tremendously over the past couple of years. He looks 20+ years older than he did even 4 years ago. However, we are being asked to believe that he spends a huge chunk of his time sleeping and vacationing.
Sure.
>>Tell us more.>>
Paid to blog-comment???
dg
Anyway, I’d rather see the occasional gaff from Obama who, like Bill Clinton, speaks in full paragraphs and appears a mile wide and a mile deep on the issues, rather than McCain who is seen making basic, grave mistakes..
Occasional? Methinks that the minute ∅bama gets away from the teleprompter, he crosses over into gaffe country. Inflating tires,anyone?
Interesting that the reaction of most to the Saddleback Forum was that McCain was better thinking on his feet than ∅bama . Recall ∅bama’s statement that we should take the Georgia issue to the UN. Yeah, right, with Russia with a Security Council veto. A mile wide and a mile deep. Oh yeah!
Oh yeah, ∅bama is a mile wide and a mile deep. Here he is speaking about his Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007
The question is: a mile wide and a mile deep of what? I shudder to think what would have occurred in Iraq if ∅bama’s Iraq War De-escalation had become policy.
∅bama made the pig in lipstick remark about the surge last year, also. Given the success of the surge, ∅bama once again comes across as a damned fool. As Palin make the pit bull w lipstick the previous week, it is not difficult to discern that ∅bama was also talking about Palin this time. Noentheless, give ∅bama a pass on this I say, with the following observation.
Palin has ∅bama rattled. The more he attacks her, the worse he comes off. ∅bama has forgotten, or never learned, one of the first principles of selling: you do better emphasizing the positive points of your product than by putting down your competitor’s product. The team’s senior star doesn’t stoop to the level of putting down the second stringer on the freshman team. Such a worm is beneath comtempt. The more ∅bama attacks Palin, the worse he appears. Why is the star senior athlete so worried about the second stringer on the freshman team? Keep attacking, ∅bama!
Gringo –
You are absolutely correct. If Obama were smart, you would think that he would implicitly understand that the last thing he needs to do is appear to be making personal attacks against Palin. You would think that he would be focusing his efforts on talking about his policies and why they are best for the country. Instead, regardless of what he intended to do, he appeared to stoop and stoop very, very low.
Is there anyone in the Democrat leadership who realizes that their reactions to Palin have contributed enormously to her popularity? And that perhaps they would be better served to limit discussion of her to policy related issues?
For now, Obama, Biden, and many on the left are a gift that just keeps on giving.
Deana
I guess I will be the lone dissenter here.
Yesterday, Barack Obama says of McCain/Palin reform and anti-corruption: “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.” (You’ve all heard that one by now.)
Also yesterday, Russ Carnahan, introducing Joe Biden at a rally, said this:
“For all his tough talk [McCain] buckled to the right wing of his party in his choice. Picked someone with zero experience in national government, zero experience in foreign affairs. There’s no way you can dress up that record, even with a lot of lipstick,” he said.
Now, I’m simply not aware of insulting lipstick jokes scattered everywhere throughout Democrat speeches over the last few months. (In fact, I can’t remember a single one.) But, hey, that’s just me! I’m sure!
I see the same hesitation on the YouTube video as Obama prepared to deliver the “lipstick on a pig” line as I saw Hillary Clinton use when she had to deliver a campaign-styled zinger on Obama during the primaries. He hesitated and had his hand over his eyes as well. It screamed “Planned!” to me; and then we get the Biden rally comment. It’s all reasonably subtle, but in fact they think they’re being very very clever and tricky with it, but they are simply underestimating their audience.
Team Obama is pointing to McCain’s talk early in the primaries on Senator Clinton’s health care plan, where McCain said the same “lipstick on a pig” comment. But, as usual, they are missing the point, because McCain was hurt by the lipstick on a pig comment… and so will Obama be hurt this time. Women… simply… do not like… this kind of stuff. But hey, Team Obama, keep on truckin! You do more good each day for McCain/Palin than they can do.
Finally, if Obama had stopped there, he would have been better off. But then he went on immediately to say: “You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It’s still gonna stink. We’ve had enough of the same old thing.”
So we have, immediately after the “lipstick on a pig” comment, two throwout uses of the word “old”. I don’t know either about the “old fish stinking”, but some liberal women bloggers are even throwing that one into the mix, wondering, if he’s such a brilliant speaker, how could he possibly use the words “old fish” so quickly after his pig lipstick comment? Either it’s all deliberate or else he’s just not that great a speaker, which is it?
In any case, Obama is having a little trouble with women reexamining both campaigns right now, and this does not help. Many women appear to be super-sensitive right now. The McCain campaign is hollering about victimization and bullying, which is never something I like, but I understand their ulterior purpose here. They’re going hard after Independent Women, trying to split them away. I don’t like the tactics of crying victimization, but it does appear to be working.
In any case, Team Obama certainly does appear to be deliberately using “lipstick” in ways they have not been using it for months.
Considering that we found out yesterday that women, particularly white women, are leaving the Obama camp in droves, I think it is safe to say that Obama and Biden are tone-deaf.
If Obama’s chief economic adviser agrees with you, dg, then he is absolutely a liberal, and if he wants to revert to the same old stuff then he may not be an idiot, but he is certainly incapable of learning from past events. So far what I’ve heard isn’t promising.
Bill Clinton’s economic poicies were clownish, and whatever success he had was a hold-over from the strongest economy and longest sustained period of growth in US history, which was engineered by Ronald Reagan. Clinton raised taxes in 1992, and the economy instantly slowed. This actually turned out to be okay: it led directly to his loss of control of both congress and the senate.
As Clinton himself later said (I paraphrase, because I don’t have a link available): “You think I raised taxes too much in 1992? Guess what, I think I did too, hyuk, hyuk.” 1999, I believe. Maybe 2000.
Forgive me for being unimpressed with Clinton’s brilliant economic team. Their one accomplishment was to not screw up a good thing too badly – which quickly became impossible for them anyway because they no longer controlled the legislative process. Clinton’s great economy was a Republican construct.
Every time somebody on the trail asks Obama a question he’s off the cuff, and thinking (if that’s the word) on his feet. It leads directly to nonsense like this most recent flap, which, if he were capable of speaking cogently obviously wouldn’t be the source of a media-consuming flap. Thinking on his feet is very clearly a weakness, and I base that on what happens every single time he has to do it. (And you can throw in that he consistently refused all summer long to sit down for a one-on-one with McCain: he knows himself he’s bad on his feet, so he isn’t going there.)
And of course McCain MUST have cheated at Saddleback…
A child. Your candidate’s a child.
Danny, you’re right. Totally different context. They vs. she. McCain is really right to be outraged. It’s not like we have a struggling economy or a war going on. We should worry that our wilting flower VP might have been the victim of a double entendre.
Gringo, on the inflating tires, you should see what the Republican-controlled DOE says about it: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/maintain.shtml. Also, on the surge, Obama was wrong, but on the WMDs, Bush was more wrong; everyone makes bad predictions, since they are really hard to do. But not doing your homework ahead of time is criminal. Finally, the McCain team is running a highly negative campaign as well, so maybe they forgot your “first principles.” Or maybe negative ads simply work on people who do not know what they are talking about (e.g., inflating tires).
Deana, women are joining Palin, but they are likely not the same women who have registered support for Obama. It is possible that the conservative, evangelical women that were unenthusiastic about McCain are suddenly shifting from “independent” or “undecided” into his camp. You need to be careful with the statistics, although the larger point that women in the aggregate showing support has shifted from advantage Obama to advantage McCain. We’ll see how it plays out in the end…
Who mentioned anything about statistics?
I am not someone who puts a whole lot of faith in polls, particularly at this early stage of the game. But there is no doubt that a shift has happened and Obama has lost some significant ground, particularly among white women.
And that is precisely why you would think that someone in the Obama camp would realize that it won’t work to Obama’s advantage if he appears to be making personal, base remarks about Palin. Many women were already upset with him because of how things turned out with Hillary. Why fuel the fire?
I have to admit, though, that the idea that millions of conservative, evangelical women were “undecided” between Obama and McCain before the Palin pick is pretty funny.
Or maybe negative ads simply work on people who do not know what they are talking about (e.g., inflating tires).
dg: what do you mean about this?
Tiresias, you have no idea what my economic policies are and conflate my knowing Obama’s economic advisor with his listening to me. Most important, you apparently have no real knowledge of what the economic history of the 80s and 90s actually is. Those that fails to do the math are doomed to talk nonsense.
Here are the relevant figures from the government offices that maintain them:
Reagan lowered tax rates largely on the wealthy (top two brackets) while raising them on everyone else, with a major tax overhaul in ’81 and another in ’86, comparing ’79-’88 data for total effective federal tax rate (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/53xx/doc5324/04-02-TaxRates.htm):
All top 5% top 1%
1979 22.2 31.8 37.0
1980 22.2 30.8 34.6
1981 22.4 29.4 31.8
1982 20.7 26.0 27.7
1983 20.4 25.6 27.7
1984 21.0 26.1 28.2
1985 20.9 25.4 27.0
1986 20.9 24.6 25.5
1987 21.6 28.5 31.2
1988 21.8 27.8 29.7
And the share of total taxes paid:
All top 5% top 1%
1979 100 29.6 15.4
1980 100 28.7 14.2
1981 100 27.2 12.9
1982 100 26.5 12.8
1983 100 27.7 14.0
1984 100 28.2 14.7
1985 100 28.4 14.8
1986 100 30.7 17.1
1987 100 30.8 16.2
1988 100 32.3 18.1
According to a non-partisan economic study out of Treasury, Reagan’s major tax bills together significantly reduced (about -1% of aggregate GDP) the federal government’s tax receipts looking at the average receipts over the subsequent four years, mainly driven by the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 that caused a massive (about -3% of GDP) decrease in revenues. So the tax cuts were regressive in the impact on tax burden across income brackets and were net negative in impacting government tax receipts.
To cover new federal budget deficits caused by the tax cuts, the US borrowed heavily and raised the national debt from $700B to $3T (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_Federal_Debt(total_and_public).JPG), as we went from being the world’s largest creditor nation to the world’s largest debtor nation. Note that Reagan himself described the new debt as the “greatest disappointment” of his presidency.
Supply-siders (e.g., Art Laffer) repeatedly argue that lower taxes yielded higher economic growth, higher employment and lower inflation, while yielding greater tax receipts (at a lower rate). Under Reagan, real GDP growth recovered strongly after the 1982 recession and averaged 3.0% per year under his tenure, lower than the 1945 to 1979 average of 3.1%. Unemployment peaked at over 10.7% in 1982 then dropped during the rest of Reagan’s terms, and inflation significantly decreased (from 13.6% in 1980 to 3.2% in 1983, with a 5.7% average from ’80 to ’88), largely due to Fed Chairman Volker’s hawkish monetary policy from 1979 to 1983. A net job increase of about 16 million also occurred, which was about equal to the rate of population growth.
Here are the real GDP figures for 1979 and the Reagan years:
1979 3.2
1980 -0.2
1981 2.5
1982 -1.9
1983 4.5
1984 7.2
1985 4.1
1986 3.5
1987 3.4
1988 4.1
Reagan’s tax cuts did indeed lead to a near doubling of tax receipts ($517 billion in 1980 to $1,032 billion in 1990), so that the deficits appeared to be caused by an increase in government spending. However, critics have shown that the doubling of revenue is significantly smaller when appropriately adjusting for inflation; real inflation-adjusted figures showed a far more modest increase in tax receipts ($1,077.4 billion in 1981 to $1,235.6 billion in 1988, measured in FY2000-dollars). Furthermore, an analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities argues that “history shows that the large reductions in income tax rates in 1981 were followed by abnormally slow growth in income tax receipts, while the increases in income-tax rates enacted in 1990 and 1993 were followed by sizeable growth in income-tax receipts.” Specifically, the analysis calculated that the average annual growth rate of real income-tax receipts per working-age person was 0.2% from 1981 to 1990 and a much higher 3.1% from 1990 to 2001.
Which leads us to the Clinton years…
Clinton raised tax rates disproportionately on the wealthy (top bracket) while raising them on the poor (bottom two brackets(http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/53xx/doc5324/04-02-TaxRates.htm):
All top 5% top 1%
1991 21.5 27.6 29.9
1992 21.5 28.1 30.6
1993 22.0 30.5 34.5
1994 22.3 31.3 35.8
1995 22.6 31.8 36.1
1996 22.7 32.0 36.0
1997 22.9 31.6 34.9
1998 22.6 30.8 33.4
1999 22.9 31.2 33.5
2000 23.1 31.1 33.2
And the share of total taxes paid:
All top 5% top 1%
1991 100 30.3 15.7
1992 100 32.3 17.5
1993 100 33.8 18.7
1994 100 34.4 19.4
1995 100 35.4 20.1
1996 100 37.3 21.8
1997 100 38.3 22.7
1998 100 38.9 23.3
1999 100 40.2 24.3
2000 100 41.4 25.6
Although Clinton raised taxes in 1993, he cut them on the highest bracket in 1997. As a result of the tax increases, which never rose back above the pre-Reagan era (i.e., 70% highest marginal rate) Clinton transformed a deficit of 4.7% of GDP in 1992 and turned it into a surplus of 2.4% of GDP in 2000. Unlike Reagan, Clinton also managed to force spending cuts by taking advantage of lower defense requirements (“the peace dividend”) and by reforming welfare; while a Republican Congress contributed to the spending cuts, the Clinton White House could have vetoed these cuts but instead supported them (e.g., Rubin’s frequent commentary on the importance of balanced budgets). As a result, federal spending fell to 18.4% of real GDP in 2000 from 22.2% in 1992.
During the Clinton years, GDP growth exceeded that achieved under Reagan, averaging 3.7% per year from 1992 to 2000. Clinton also lowered inflation rates down to 2.6% (92-00 average), which contributed greatly to the good economic health exhibited during Clinton’s presidency. The Clinton administration also achieved a thirty-year low unemployment rate of 3.9% versus an average under prior Democratic presidents of 4.3% and under Republican presidents of 6.1% (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3316/is_200101/ai_n8011737).
The GDP growth data for 1991 and the Clinton years are as follows:
1991 -0.2
1992 3.3
1993 2.7
1994 4.0
1995 2.5
1996 3.7
1997 4.5
1998 4.2
1999 4.5
2000 3.7
Critics of Clinton claim that the burden on top brackets were unfairly high. But they failed to account for the growing income inequality occuring in the 1990s that, under a progressive tax system, would cause this growing contribution. Here is a historical perspective on the growth of that inequality (an income Gini of 0 is perfect equality, while 100 is perfect inequality):
1967: 39.7 (first year reported)
1968: 38.6 (lowest index reported)
1970: 39.4
1980: 40.3
1990: 42.8
2000: 46.2
2005: 46.9
2006: 47.0 (highest index reported)
2007: 46.3
The other major claim, which Tiresias wants to make, is that the Clinton economy benefited from the Reagan years. The problem with this argument is that economic growth actually declined to 2.1% average annual growth under Bush Sr. before reaccelerating to a growth rate under Clinton that was higher than under Reagan (3.7% vs. 3.0%); also, the Reagan years saw the largest tax cut in history but saw average annual growth that was lower than the preceding period between WWII and the start of his presidency.
I believe that anyone examining the record would have to conclude that Clinton’s economic record is superior to Reagan’s, as measured by GDP growth, unemployment, inflation and deficit/debt metrics. Clearly, the tax hikes under Clinton did not slow economic growth from the Reagan era as many have argued, but actually accelerated from both the Reagan and Bush Sr. rates.
Unsurprisingly, Tiresias wants to give all of the credit to the Republican Congress, which might have been a plausible answer in 2000; however, given the GOP control of Congress during 75% of the Bush administration, and the record spending and deficit growth occuring on the Republican watch (see the national debt chart link above), it is a very difficult argument to make that the GOP was singularly responsible for spending cuts.
Because Obama’s economic advisor is a protege of Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan, two of the architects of the Clinton economic legacy, I believe that the critique of Obama’s economic policies is completely premature and, in my opinion, would prove completely off-base as well.
Deana, you really don’t get stats, do you? Those evangelical women would be undecided between voting for McCain or staying home.
dg
Or maybe negative ads simply work on people who do not know what they are talking about (e.g., inflating tires).
I repeat myself, in an attempt to get an answer. dg: what do you mean by this?
I meant exactly what I wrote. Attack ads work on people who are ill-informed and internalize the lies rather than the facts. McCain has chanted the change mantra for weeks now, but he is not an agent of change if his record is 90% in alignment with Bush. McCain closed his recent energy policy commercial with pictures of windmills although he failed to vote in favor of the bill that will ensure that they can be built. McCain attacked Obama for saying that inflating tires would conserve oil, but then admitted on the air a week later that it actually does. You mocked Obama’s inflate your tires suggestion (“inflate tires, anyone?”), even though the DOE of the Bush Adminstration cites a 3% improvement in gas efficiency coming at essentially no capital cost–this has a higher return on investment than any other energy proposal out there. And before you start the tax-and-spend-liberals gambit (and those attack ads are coming too), you might take a look at the economic history that I’ve laid out above.
I hope it’s clear now…
You mocked Obama’s inflate your tires suggestion (”inflate tires, anyone?”), even though the DOE of the Bush Adminstration cites a 3% improvement in gas efficiency coming at essentially no capital cost–this has a higher return on investment than any other energy proposal out there..
To get it done, to make sure that nearly all or 90% or 95% of tires are properly inflated is another issue entirely.Think pooper-scoopers. It is one thing to want social compliance on an issue, and it is another matter entirely so get it . So while it is theoretically done at no capital cost, getting a measurable improvement is another matter entirely.
I made the assumption that you were already well informed about the air in tires issue. Apparently I was mistaken. So I will now take the time to inform you. Nobody is disputing that inflating tires is a good thing to do. I have done it for years on my own autos. However, let us consider what the Senator from Illinois actually said on the matter. Just as we considered what Governor Palin actually said about drilling in her acceptance speech at the RNC.
All the conventional oil- excluding oil shale for example. Offshore and onshore. Alaska and the lower 48. That is, all the oil from increased drilling.
Repeat after me:
all the oil
all the oil
all the oil.
That is what the Senator from Illinois was talking about, and that is what I am calling him on.
The Senator from Illinois was dead wrong on the issue. The link I gave has the best summary of the issue I have seen. What is even more dismaying about the matter is that the Senator from Illinois refused to admit he had made a mistake on the issue. From my previous link.
165,000 versus 780,000. see what I mean?
Anyone who claims that we have sufficient conventional oil resources to substitute for all our oil imports is mistaken. I appreciated that you admitted you were mistaken in attributing such a claim to Palin in her speech at the Convention. Similarly, anyone who claims that inflating tires and tuneups can substitute for all the oil from increased drilling is also mistaken.
The air in tires brouhaha is a textbook example that when the Senator from Illinois strays from the teleprompter, he is prone to make claims that are total nonsense. Telling people to inflate tires or have tune-ups, that is fine. But to claim that it can substitute for all the oil from increased drilling, that is total nonsense.
If you are going to discuss an issue, it would really behoove you to know what you are talking about before you storm into a discussion.
Correction.
It is one thing to want social compliance on an issue, and it is another matter entirely so get it .
to:
It is one thing to want social compliance on an issue, and it is another matter entirely to get it .
Gringo, McCain the following day mocked Obama by saying that Obama had claimed that we could “break our dependence on foreign oil” by inflating tires, which he did not say. Clearly, Obama misspoke. But McCain misspoke as well. Also, McCain is against drilling in ANWR, so why do you use ANWR figures as a reference point? Or did McCain announce something I missed?
Finally, if we are nitpicking language on the campaign stump, then you ought to criticize Palin for the ridiculous remark she made after telling us at the convention that she is an expert on Alaska’s North Slope. On Monday, Palin on CNBC said it was “nonsensical” that the President of the US goes to negotiate with the Saudis to have them increase their oil production for us when we have these resources at home, in Alaska (see after 2 minutes at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GE11URmmnc). Saudi Arabia has most of the world’s swing production, which was estimated in 2004 at 1.3 million barrels per day. Alaska HAS NO SWING PRODUCTION CAPACITY FOR OIL!! In fact, production in Alaska dropped 15% last month due to temporary outages, which would not have happened if there was additional capacity that could have been brought online (see http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/594235017.shtml). Also note that the Saudis’ swing capacity is roughly twice as much as Alaska’s entire oil production (650K barrels per day), so Palin’s solution is to tap her state’s excess capacity of 0 barrels per day rather than asking the Saudi’s who have 1.3M barrels per day. Let me repeat that: 0 barrels versus 1.3M barrels. For the record, when the Saudis tap the swing capacity it is on the order of 250-600K barrels per day. Alaska doesn’t have that kind of excess capacity, and Palin is either a gaffe machine herself or (worse) knows less about energy than she is letting on.
And, Gringo, it didn’t come as news to me that inflating tires would replace domestic production, much less make us energy independent. And I’m still not sure you know more about energy than I do, since you basically plagiarized one blog site to get your info. But thanks for the warning that I should get my facts straight. And I do agree with your friend, the blogger, that Obama should have simply owned up to the misstatement, if in fact he didn’t…