So is -158 half of +236?
You annoying liberals and your fancy educations.
Well, that’s the price of choosing suspiciously specific timeframes. It’s like a mayor saying “The city’s rate of violent crime has gone steadily down under my administration ever since May.” Why May? Because then you don’t have to count that Easter Weekend Massacre.
Yep, that’s me all over. Them facts is too much for me.
Bryan, actually I don’t expect better from most of the gang that posts in these threads, but from you I did. Assigning biased stereotypes to someone disagreeing with you is as lazy as saying that the $6 trillion was an inevitability, once the Republicans decided to render the government useless. It’s a non sequitur, which was my point, as much as furt’s was. It’s a Mad Lib that used the wrong talking point to fill in the blank.
Yes, I agree there’s room for debate. I would amplify this point by saying someone who attributes this principally to Republican obstructionism is not likely to offer anything constructive to the exchange either.
Thanks to economic growth that was unsustainable, being build on top of credit thanks to the housing bubble. “This is the smoothest jump I ever made” said the parachutist whose chute didn’t open just before he went in.
I don’t know how I should feel the notion that I’ve disappointed you; I just lay the facts as I see 'em. I’m not specifically opposed to your Republican Party (nor specifically sympathetic to your Democratic Party), I just have misgivings about the post 9/11 message that Bush43 advanced and the then-Congress went along with - we’re gonna get those guys, but the rest of you may as well just go on shopping and spending, don’t worry about the bill. I’d have to do more research to fairly pin blame for the subprime crisis, but even if I let that go, isn’t Dodd-Frank designed to prevent it from happening again? And who’s hampering Dodd-Frank other than Congressional Republicans? Seriously, why else resist the appointment of a CFPB director except to fight the Bureau’s mission and hamper Obama? And, unfortunately, there is no shortage of friendly reporters and stooges to defend such shenanigans.
Is your point that the economic collapse is the fault of the Republicans, maybe, and that the $6 trillion was unavoidable once the economy tanked? And that Dodd-Frank, if it were not hampered by the Republicans, might have minimized the debt? Or something else? I’m still not seeing the logical progression from “Republicans want to render the government useless” to “$6 trillion in debt.” Our circumstance is much more complex than that, and I don’t see the recently assumed debt (in total) as having been an inevitability, though elements of it may well have been in the short term.
That’s how it rolls now, thanks to Bush. Clinton balanced the budget and even ran a surplus, and the first thing Bush did after getting elected was say the surplus should be returned to the people — ignoring the fact that the surplus was just starting to make a tiny dent in the national debt that Reagan and Bush Sr. had run up.
So he went into massive deficit spending, even starting two wars, only one of which had any justification, while still cutting taxes.
A Democratic President would have to be an idiot to make a serious attempt at balancing the budget after that demonstration of Republican irresponsibility. Why take the heat for all the necessary program cuts, when the next Republican in office will just piss away whatever you manage to save up?
Well now, that’s just quitter talk. Did Sisyphus ever stop pushing his rock up the hill, just because it would keep rolling back down forever ? Did the Danaids ever stop pouring water into their barrel, even though it had no bottom ? Hell no ! They’re still at it !
Put simply, there’s been a pattern of gross financial irresponsibility in Washington since 2001 and I see the blame applicable to Bush43 and congress, particularly the Republican members of congress. I don’t think this is a particularly bizarre or unsupportable or confusing claim, though it looks like you’re acting confused with your misstatement about my opinion on Dodd-Frank. Dodd-Frank represents an effort at financial regulation, something the congressional Republicans oppose, something they’ll engage in parliamentary tricks to hamper. Tighter financial regulation, if it had existed at the time, would probably have minor effect on the current debt - perhaps TARP and such would have been avoided. Unfortunately, Republican irresponsibility is being reward by voters easily distracted by vacuous accusations of “socialism!”
So assuming the current debt was not inevitable (and I believe my point is that it was not - its origins just predate the current president), what actions and whose actions are you suggesting brought it about?
One could argue that bringing forth Health Care Act redirected attention from pressing issue of economy that, at the time of Obama taking office, was still in ruins and needed serious resources and thinking unfettered from ideological entrenchment that any discussion on health care does.
If I recall correctly, in 2009 and 2010 and even through 2011 major political subject was health care with economy only being discussed through high-level concepts such as stimulus, debt ceiling or quantitative easing that are dealing with symptoms and are not real economic measures that were required.
Not really, eh?
We have always been at war with the deficit.
Well, even if that’s true, what do you suggest Obama should have been doing instead, in paying “attention” to the economy?
I don’t personally get the American resistance to a generalize public health insurance, myself. I understand the incentive of insurance companies and such to lobby hard against it, but the ease with which slapping a specious “socialism!” label on something can doom it baffles me.
I dunno, what measures do you think were required, or even recommended?
In a nutshell, Obama chose/sided/agreed with/liked/decided to go with Summers instead of Volcker.
Another was that for PERAB they decided to do irrelevant things (in my opinion, of course) as per:
/* what I meant is tasks outlined above are not really economic policy things typically expected from the government in times of crisis
The downrating was because a large chunk of the legislature was insisting that the nation had a moral imperative, overriding all other priorities, to refuse to pay the debts that we owed. I’d be leery about lending money to someone who insisted something that irrational, too. The rating agencies don’t care how much money we borrow; they just care that we’ll pay it back.
My opinion has always been that there’s ample blame to spread around that entire fraternity of imbeciles in Washington, both sides of the aisle. The Republicans of recent vintage only know how to talk about fiscal responsibility. As a practical matter, they haven’t yet been formally introduced. I give the Dems credit for at least doing what they said they’d do. However much I disagree with them, at least it isn’t a stealth strategy. But both have their own idiotic pain-free solutions to the debt problem, and neither seem to be able to restrain themselves from spending more dough in the meantime, all the while shouting at each other in their dysfunctional debating society in D.C. over how evil the other guys are.
I’m still unclear on what you think is “typically expected.” I’ll read up on what Volcker was advocating, but if there are any specifics you want to note, I invite you to do so.
Sure, there’s ample blame, but I don’t see how raising taxes on the wealthy is “pain-free”, or claims to be - it’s inflicting some pain on the people who happen to be in the best position to tolerate it, and in fact who may barely notice it, though their lobbyists will no doubt complain at length about how it’s destroying innovation, or some such thing.
Any economic policy re-thinking in US simply must include re-thinking of Feds. I know, not the most popular idea as the hordes of uneducated people are making their judgement of Feds on the absolute and utter lack of knowledge of the subject. So, yeah, Feds re-work should have been in the books but it is not. I don’t have exact cite but I think Mr. Volcker had similar if veiled ideas himself.
However I do have another cite Subscribe to read from German finance minister. If there’s one guy who knows his sh!t that would be him (or any other Finance Minister of Germany). This article is from Nov, 2010 but that’s when the critical moment was.