Weird thread you guys have here, with people discussing three separate issues: total debt, the current debt limit crisis, and the bad economy, all with different people assuming different strengths of relations. e.g. Some think the debt caused said bad economy; to others, it’s completely disconnected and arises from different causes.
Oh for Emma Goldman and Will Roger’s sake! It was ever thus.
Who, specifically, are the “Pubs” that say this, specifically?
Right you are, Bricker. It wasn’t “Pubs”, it was Republicans. Damn, he’s just too sharp for us! Specifically.
My understanding is that the intellectual framework for the abuses started under Reagan, picked up major steam under Clinton and Bush jr then the economy collapsed, now Obama is left with it.
I don’t grasp people who blame Obama for the crisis either, for the most part they are the same people who believe creationism is a science and global warming is a hoax. ie, people with no interest or investment in reality. You can claim Obama’s policies made the crisis worse (which I don’t agree with, but that is a viewpoint), but I don’t see how you can blame the crisis that started a year before he took office.
Cure for gridlocked congress? I doubt there is a realistic one. Redistricting to make races more competitive would help.
The economy was in good shape until the Democrats took over congress in 2006. I haven’t gotten around to see if Bush is to blame for appointing that idiot Bernanke. If so, he does deserve part of the blame.
Reagan cut taxes, cut regulations, kept the dollar strong and the economy mostly was good until 2007.
Or, like the fact that we’ve more than doubled federal spending in the last ten years, with Bush and Obama both jacking it up. Maybe that has a weensy bit to do with it.
Since Obama has always been in favor of keeping most of those cuts, and recently agreed to keep all of them, they are properly called the Bush-Obama cuts.
Someone better tell George HW Bush that.
And Reagan also raised plenty of taxes.
Where does the concept that a strong dollar is automatically good come from? Is it because the word “strong” has such positive connotations?
With a weaker dollar, we have the hope of making our exports look more attractive and our wages are relatively less burdensome compared to foreign workers. In fact, China deliberately manipulates things to maintain a weak currency and complains whenever the dollar falls. So, it’s not like a strong currency is something we should always be shooting for.
And it’s not even a particularly partisan thing. The dollar was also strong under most of Clinton’s term, but I never thought the “strong dollar = good dollar” had any real support from economists. Or am I wrong?
Oh, and as noted, Reagan cut taxes…before he raised them again (and Bush had to further raise them after Reagan left office).
Also, too much regulation cutting is not a good thing. I guess you forgot about that little S&L thing in the 80s, not that you can lay the blame for that entirely at Reagan’s feet.
I guess your uncertainty about the Fed is a good indicator of the quality of your comments. You do remember Bernanke having a fairly major role in 2007 and 2008, right?
In any case the “good” economy was built on debt taken out by consumers from their supposedly increased property values. The income of the middle class hardly grew at all during the Bush years, which was the root cause of the need for people to take money out of their houses. Greenspan of course resisted any additional regulations which might have prevented the mortgage companies from lowering standards to rock bottom.
The issue is not Dems vs Pubs, it’s conservatives vs liberals. Conservatives, once the sane voice on the economy, are now just a bunch of nuts. “Hey, here’s a thought: we prohibit the govt from negotiating with drug companies”. “Good idea, lets start a war and cut taxes too”.
OK.
And who, specifically, were the Republicans who specifically said that in raw numbers, not comparable years in office, Obama/Dems are as responsible for the debt as Bush?
You’re kidding, right?
Of course it does. The difference, which the chart in the OP points out, is that Bush jacked it up more and for a longer period of time. Nobody is denying (or at least I’m not) that Obama also increased spending. Merely that his increases were time-limited and smaller than Bush’s increases.
I will quibble with your use of “more than doubled federal spending in the last ten years”. As a percentage of GDP, federal outlays have gone from 18.2% in 2000 to 23.8% in 2010. In raw dollars it went from $9.8 trillion to $14.5 trillion. That is not more than double either way it’s stated.
Cite: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/
Meh. I call them what the general public calls them. Just like I call it Obamacare. I’m a descriptivist.
From what I can tell, the tax cut extension was included in the Obama column in the OP chart (under “stimulus tax cuts”) so there is no deception there.
There is this guy:
Speaking of that, what happened to the spending cuts that the Dems promised in exchange for Bush’s new taxes? Oh right, they never followed through on their promise.
End of hijack