Clinton actually balanced the budget and achieved a surplus. Bush cut taxes over and over. he started 2 wars and paid for them by supplementals, hiding the cost from the country. He did a huge prescription bill and did not pay for that either. So tell me again how both parties are to blame again.
Obama is not hiding the deficit. He is addressing it. He actually has plans of lowering it. So tell me again it is both parties.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/soundeconomywithjontalton/2010958456_cheneys_deficits_dont_matter_b.html Reagan, Cheney and Bush said “deficits don’t matter”. They governed like they believed it too. Again the Dems have to attempt to fix the repub mess. But while Dems have had deficits, they never said it was a great policy like the Repubs did and still do.
It is just state and local money, it does not flow from the Federal government or it would be listed as an outlay in the data I have presented. I agree it is trouble, but it is not the Federal Government that is responsible for the growth in government spending in the graph you linked too, it is the State and Local Governments that are causing the growth.
Regarding the CBO projections, yes Medicare and Medicaid are a huge problem that will get worse if we don’t address it. Everything else in that figure are relatively flat (There is a slight bump in Social Security due to retiring baby boomers, but in the main, Social Security will remain relatively constant between 3 and 5 % of GDP).
All that said, what is the point? I will agree with you that the current deficits are bad. I agree that the national debt should be reduced and could become a problem. I will concede, even whole-heartedly agree, that it would be a good idea to cut spending. I will also concede, and agree, that Medicare and Medicaid spending is out of control and we need to do something about it. But I will disagree if you try to pin all this shit on President Obama or the Democrats.
Take a look at this graph. The top bar graph is the deficit, the bottom colored blocks represent control of the Presidency, House and Senate respectively (blue = Democratic control, orange = Republican). Here is the same data sorted by deficit as percentage of GDP. Here is spending as a percentage of GDP. It looks to me that arguing that the Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility and small government is a stretch.
So let’s agree with each other that there is a problem and drop the partisan blame game. Let’s figure out the best way to fix our deficit problems and elect the people who are most likely to fix it. If these people are Republicans, great, but present some data that they will actually do something about it and not just cut taxes on the rich and hope that voodoo economics saves us all. I, personally don’t think the Democrats are going to do much about it, but they have done better with it since Nixon.
The Repubs merely claim to fiscally conservative. If they say it enough ,they even begin to believe it themselves. But they do not govern that way. They cut revenue (taxes) and claim it will make money. it does not, has not and will not. The Repubs have no standing to bitch about deficits. They are the party of fiscal recklessness.
You are right about President Bush not being blamed for the 2001 recession. At least this did not seem to be a mainstream thing.
President Obama, however, seems to be blamed for the current recession quite often (Here are a couple of examples: 1, 2, 3). It’s funny that it started in 2008 (before he took office) yet President Obama still gets the blame. It’s funny that President Bush spent 150 billion on a stimulus package and another 800 billion on the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (i.e. the TARP bailout, negotiated with the help of Republican Presidential Nominee John McCain ;)). It’s funny that President Obama is the one sinking us with his policies because of the 787 billion dollar “Porkulus” bill, aka the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Nevermind that 288 billion of the bill is made up of tax cuts, which were added in a bipartisan move to keep Republicans happy and on board (even thought the partisan Democrats could probably have shoved it through without it). Its funny that under President Bush, congress gave the auto industry 25 billion dollars in loans and President Bush gave them 17 billion dollars in TARP funds, but President Obama is the one for bailing out the industry when he gave them another 30 billion. All this doom and gloom and President Obama is to blame is bullshit.
Wow! :smack: Where did you learn your economics? Studying Hoover’s actions during 1930-1932? At least Hoover had the excuse that J.M. Keynes hadn’t written his famous textbook yet.
Most economists agree that, for quicker recovery from the present recession and unemployment, more than Obama’s fiscal stimulus would be appropriate, not less. Or do you think Sean Hannity knows more economics than Nobel-Prize winners?
As others point out in the thread, with the exception of the recent emergency stimulus to avoid another Great Depression, it is Republicans (despite all their blather) and not Democrats, who run up deficits. One can sometimes find them admitting, in almost so many words, that running up national debt is a deliberate policy so that there will be no appetite for new spending when Democrats get into power.
And by the way, just as a bank will be happier to give you a 2nd mortgage for home repairs than for a Vegas vacation, so it makes a big difference how deficit spending is spent. To borrow a billion dollars for a billion dollars worth of road and bridge repairs is not to just burn the money up, whatever Glenn Beck may have pounded into your head. If the goal were to throw the money away uselessly, we’d start a foolish war in the Middle East accompanied with bizarre schemes whose only discernable purpose is enriching politically connected corporations.
Well - I have one solution. I propose a profit-sharing plan. A plan where every member of Congress, the President, the Vice President and the justices of the Supreme Court - all split a % of any budget surplus. For example, lets say a miracle happens and we come up with a $100 million budget surplus. I’m thinking, take 50% (or whatever % makes sense) of that budget surplus and divide it up among everyone - that way, they all get a check for roughly $100,000. Now, I’m not generally a fan of paying off pols, but I figure this is enough cash to get their attention.
The way I see it - this will force politicians to balance two key elements. On the one hand - they’ll want to spend as necessary to keep their constituents happy, thereby keeping their jobs. On the other hand - they’ll want to create a surplus so they can get their hands on some cold hard cash. I would expect that public pressure to produce results would prevent them from focusing too much on surpluses and not enough on running the country.
Basically - I don’t see any long-term way to incent politicians to be responsible with someone else’s money - unless they have a personal stake in it.
<A whole bunch of old quotes from me>
Y’know, when I look at all those, I don’t see a whole lot to disagree with. Do you dispute any of the facts I mentioned, as we knew them at the time? And you don’t get to play, “But Bush was setting up the economy for a big fall!”, because that’s not what we were debating.
Take this quote from me:
The fact is, all of this was true in 2007. The economy was booming. There was nothing untrue in what I said at all. In fact, in the same thread I pointed out how worrying it was that personal savings were so low.
And of course, I could play the same game - that thread is full of people on the left screaming about how outrageous Bush’s $177 billion deficit was. That’s about 10% of Obama’s deficit this year, but you’re all pretty quiet about it now, aren’t you?
And really, given that you’ve now seeing what a REAL bad economy looks like, don’t you feel a little silly calling an economy with GDP growth near 4%, a 4.3% unemployment rate, a deficit that was only 1.2% of GDP and low inflation a horrible economy? I mean, really? The only reason I had to keep posting quotes like the above was because there was so much caterwauling on the left about how horrible the economy was, which was patently untrue. We’d all kill to be in any economy like 2007’s again, wouldn’t we?
You know what? I’m pretty sure that Obama is smart enough and educated enough to know that.
For all intents and purposes, money DOES grow on trees as far as the Federal Government is concerned. The problem is that if you keep growing money, that money eventually becomes less valuable and you end up with inflation (sort of like what happened to Germany before WWII). Since we are in a deflationary recession, however, that isn’t really an issue right now. The theory (according to Keynes) is that it is more important to throw money into the economy to stimulate growth than it is to balance the budget. Kind of losing your job and using your credit card to pay for rent so you don’t become homeless.
That’s a game I’m not playing, we agree on that. I would never say that the GOP is the party of fiscal responsibility. There isn’t one now (unless you count Ron Paul as a party I suppose - I don’t know enough of his policies).
Part D, continued OEF and OIF, and a refusal to do anything about 3rd rail entitlements have virtually doomed our children’s generation, and their children’s, to confiscatory tax rates that will kill our chances to grow out of this… at least not without some serious inflation, which presents its own set of problems.
One problem I do have with the current admin is using the returned TARP funds to slide through more spending, monies that were supposed to be used to pay back the treasury. Those are monies borrowed from our kids and the Chinese. Let’s not dig this whole any deeper.
Yes, when you look back at what you were saying a few years ago it’s hilarious that anybody could accuse you of not knowing what you’re talking about.
I would.
I’d start short selling and make a fortune.
We had a 90% marginal rate of income tax in the 1950s and grew our way out of a much higher debt:GDP level than we’re facing now and with much higher GDP growth too.
Like this quote from you?
The low savings rate, as we now are well aware, came from people borrowing to consume while their incomes stagnated, even while productivity improved.
Have you never heard the fable of the ant and the caterpillar? When the economy was good (which it was, though it was build on sand) you should be decreasing the deficit. Kind of like Clinton did. When the economy is bad, you need stimulus. If Bush had been fiscally competent he would have increased taxes to pay for the wars and Medicare D. Then we would be in better shape today.
If you were in the lucky few with good paying jobs who got raises, yes indeed. If you were one of the many who lived well by borrowing on the apparent increase in home value, not so much. Bet you considered those tulips real valuable, didn’t you?
My understanding, and I may be wrong, is that this money is going to be lent to local banks, not given to them, to allow them to make loans to small businesses. With any luck we should make a profit on this money also.
A lot of the TARP money was supposed to support lending by the banks, lending which didn’t happen, so one can argue that the new program is more in line with what was originally intended - or perhaps, said better, what was said to be intended.
As I noted before, those threads were full of people pointing out your errors, biases, partisanship, mistakes and misrepresentations. I knew you’d say “That was then, this is now”, but that dog don’t hunt. Or, to put it another way, plenty of people pointed out that you were wrong and why you were wrong.
Like I’ve said, I remain shocked that anyone gives you any credibility on economic issues. Especially when you say nonsense like this.
You say this as if that economy has nothing to do with the present economy. You spent the entirety of the 2000’s selling us on the Bush economy, which by any realistic account was the longest, flattest recovery ever, which created no jobs, and which turned out in the end to be a big shit sandwich. You’ve got a lot of gall to turn around and suggest that the people who were pointing out your nonsense were not entirely correct.
Noone will ever say that Sam doesn’t have Stones.
No, I don’t. The posts I made had the raw data in them for everyone to see. They were correct. It wasn’t “Bush’s Economy” - it was the economy. It has metrics. You can measure them. By all the metrics in use by economists at the time, it was simply not the the worst economy ever, as you guys kept trying to say it was. Sorry, but those are the facts.
The fact is, the things that caused the recession were a matter of major debate, and your side wasn’t always on the right side of it. Paul Krugman heartily approved of the housing bubble, as did the Democrats in Congress. But that’s not even the debate here. The stuff you posted was generally my response to someone coming in and saying, “Aghh!!! This is the worst economy ever!” And I would patiently try to explain what a really bad economy actually looks like.
Well, now you’re in one, and you know. This is a bad economy. 2004 wasn’t.
The things that made the economy from roughly 2004 to 2007 “good.” The artificially low interest rates, the reckless and unsustainable extension of credit, the tax cuts etc. Would you say now, with the benefit of hindsight and everything, that these were sensible economic policies? Something worth praising?
Yeah, but you spun the big-picture forecast very differently, based not on accurate assessment of economic weak spots but on ideological partisanship. The observation that you can’t spot a disaster coming in consequence of conservative/libertarian/Republican policies, whereas you’re always unremittingly loud in your croaking forebodings about imminent catastrophe due to liberal/Democratic policies, is not an unfair “gotcha”: rather, it’s exactly the point I was making.
I do give you credit, Sam, and always have, for being consistent on your general principles in the abstract. You will indeed always say that you don’t like big deficits or big government or increased taxes, no matter which party is currently perpetrating them. However, when it comes to your habitual blue-sky pontificating about the overall situation and outlook, you cut the perpetrators slack, or not, depending on whether or not they’re your ideological allies (or at least fellow travelers).
If, say, Bush is doing something you disapprove of, you’ll admit it, but always in the context of “well, but the general indicators are positive and there are extenuating circumstances and anyway it’s better than what the Democrats would have done.” If Clinton or Obama is doing something you disapprove of, on the other hand, out you come in your full Cassandra costume and wig, proclaiming (more in sorrow than in anger, natch) that this is going to open the floodgates of doom and things will be worse than we’ve ever known them and our only hope is to stop the insanity now.
And as a result of this partisan polarization in your crystal ball, much of your blue-sky pontificating ends up being grossly wrong, and wrong in a predictable way.
Because many conservatives claim to endorse libertarian principles at least on economic issues, and many libertarians ally themselves politically with conservatives because conservatives have more adherents and more clout and more chance of implementing certain measures that libertarians like, such as tax cuts. For example, Sam Stone is primarily a libertarian, but he frequently supports conservative positions and candidates in US politics because it’s the conservatives rather than the libertarians who have the numbers to get things done around here.