Not at all. Now that the crash has happened, it’s much clearer what was going on at the time. But that’s hindsight, and it’s also not what this debate is about.
If you look at my posts, they are typically standard economic descriptions of the economy - unemployment, business investment, inflation, deficits, GDP growth. The standard metrics used by economists to judge the relative health of an economy. I stand completely by the fact that those metrics did not in any way describe an economy in 2001-2007 that was the worst since the Great Depression.
Look, I remember those debates very well. I remember the number of people who were yapping about how the ‘real’ unemployment rate was in double digits, and therefore the 4.3% number was irrelevant. They were claiming that the economy was actually in tatters with massive unemployment and the ‘real’ numbers were a charade. It was nonsense. Yes, you can come up with a bigger number for unemployment if you count discouraged and under-employed workers - but no one seems particularly eager to do that today, do they? Do you know what that number is now? It’s over 17%. THIS is the worst economy since the Great Depression. Bush’s economies weren’t even close.
Those are simply the facts. Now you want to try to change the debate into one about whether Bush was setting you up for a fall, but that wasn’t the debate then. The claims I was refuting were the ones that said the economy was terrible at that time.
But my tone towards the economy started changing very shortly after the last quote that Hentor posted. And if you go back to the start of the 2008 downturn, you’ll see that I laid blame right on Alan Greenspan for maintaining artificially low interest rates.
Paul Krugman, by the way, wanted rates even lower. He saw the housing bubble as a good replacement for the dot-com bubble. He specifically said that he wanted Greenspan to put policies in place that would inflate a housing bubble to keep the economy going. How do you feel about that? Doesn’t that give you pause where you read his advice today? Or does your critical eye only land on the people who disagree with you?
Why do we even use these 10 year projections anyways? They are meaningless. In 1999, we were talking about retiring the entire public portion of the national debt by 2010.
In 2004, Bush was talking about “cutting the deficit in half” by the time he left office.
In 1993, Clinton’s budgets showed “deficits as far as the eye could see” and the budget was balanced 5 years later.
In 1995, the GOP and the Dems wrangled over whether to have a 7 year plan to balance the budget or a 10 year plan. It ended up taking 3 years because of a blistering economy.
I don’t know the answer, but it sure isn’t Obama. Right after talking about tightening spending, he gives social security recipients a $250 check because they didn’t get a cost of living increase this year. Well, they didn’t get a COL because the cost of living didn’t increase.
Sure, he inherited a lot of the deficit, but he keeps adding to it. The only long-term answer is for the feds to go back to their constitutional role of a limited government. But nobody who won’t bring home the bacon can get elected, so it will never happen.
No, it was in response to the wildly inaccurate claims that the Bush economy was the worst since the Great Depression. Of course I’m going to point out the rosy bits in response, right?
By the way, I went back and read the messages Hentor quoted from. He conveniently left out any caveats I might have added. Immediately after one of the snippets he posted, I said that there were also negative indicators and I by no means thought the economy was perfect - just that it wasn’t the worst ever.
In the paragraph right before one of Hentor’s clips, I said this:
Does that sound like kneejerk partisanship to you? That whole quote he posted lacked context - I was responding to the claim that Bush’s deficits were bankrupting the country. My response was that Bush was irresponsible, and the deficits were too big, but it was a stretch to say they were bankrupting the country since the U.S.'s debt-GDP ratio still ranked 34th in the world and the deficit was coming down.
But if you think I was wrong then, I assume that you’re completely freaking out about Obama’s deficits, which are much, much higher. If you were worried about a debt to GDP ratio of 60%, why are you all not worried about the debt going over 100% of GDP, and deficits of 10% of GDP as far as the eye can see?
Really? Did you miss the quote of mine from the past, posted in this very thread, where I said this about the prescription drug benefit?
Yeah, I really sugar-coated it for old Bush, didn’t I? Now for more fun, go back and see what I said about Bush’s response to the Terry Schiavo affair or his steel tariffs or his bloating of government.
This more than anything tells me that you don’t really read what I’m saying - you read what the caricature of me in your head is saying. You’ve got a serious case of confirmation bias going. I have had nothing but good things to say about Bill Clinton for a long, long time. When Obama first got started, I said a lot of complimentary things about him as well. In another thread, I just finished posting that I liked his new NASA budget and that I supported his appointment of Cass Sunnstein and thought he had some good ideas.
Whatever you say. And of course, I hope you turn your hypocrisy detector on your own side, who ranted and raved about Bush’s deficits and are now completely silent on Obama’s.
This is completely true. I live my life having to choose the lesser of two evils, as do most of us. But I sided with the Democrats on a number of issues. I just finished listing them in another thread, but they include gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, drug legalization, and a number of other, mostly social issues. I’m no lockstep Republican supporter, and I think you know that.
I don’t think you read what Kimstu was saying. As I read it, he was saying that your projections are biased; that you predict a rosy future when Republican economic policies are enacted, but doom and gloom when the Democrats do something. Anything good you may have said about Clinton’s policies only refutes that if you said it in 1992.
Blah, blah, blah. Same old conservative record playing over and over. The truth is hard to face: when Democrats are in charge the deficit goes down, when Republicans try and pull their supply side nonsense it goes up. After someones drives the car into the ditch you don’t give them back the wheel.
Obama is trying to fix the mess that conservatives handed him. He is using the classic tactic of increasing spending during a recession. This would not have been a problem if Bush had continued Clinton’s policies. But instead of having the breathing room created by budget surpluses, the spending is on top of pre-existing deficits.
Tax rates are too low right now. Anyone but ideologues with their fingers in their ears know this. Govt spending is not out of line with regards to historical GDP/govt spending ratios. If we didn’t have a fool hardy war, and payments to service the Republican debt (8% of the budget is servicing the Bush/Reagan/Bush deficit) we’d be in great shape.
We need to raise taxes, stop electing Republicans, stop sending all that money to red states, and get out of Iraq.
You conservatives failed in leading, now please just get out of the way.
Nobody’s being “silent” on Obama’s horrific budget deficits. The deficit problem is being decried all over the news these days as massively unsustainable, and Obama supporters know perfectly well that the only reasonable response is “yes it is, but we’re expecting not to have to sustain it.”
Everybody knows these days that deficits are a big problem. The reason we were “ranting and raving” about Bush’s deficits back in the Bush days was because so many Bush supporters were refusing to admit deficits were a problem. Remember the notorious Cheney quote, “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter”?
So your “hypocrisy” dog won’t hunt. The difference is simply that now that the Republicans are out of office, we don’t need to rant and rave any more in order to get Republicans and their supporters to stop ignoring the deficit problem.
Of course I do, since I just finished saying that. I freely acknowledged in my most recent post that you are consistently willing to identify specific issues where you disagree with Republicans. My complaint is that your general allocation of blame and credit, pessimism and optimism, with regard to overall policy outcomes is wildly biased depending on whether those policies happen to be backed by Republicans or Democrats.
Exactly correct, except for the gender of the pronoun.
I’ve already said this was not a greatest hits. I wasn’t making any careful selection or anything. What I posted was, in my estimation, at most 10% of what I could have quoted. I was very much like Homer Simpson skipping through the land of chocolate, reaching out my hand to scoop up the bounty. Do you really think, looking back over your history on the topic, a caveat here or there really changes the fact that you were the biggest champion of the Bush economy? Hell, you even started a thread crowing about the Bush economy, and routinely derided the people who pointed out your errors and biases.
Obama’s federal debt problem is a shit sandwich that Bush handed him. You can turn around and blame him for it, but in reality you’ve been a cheerleader for the precursors to that shit sandwich for 10 years. I’m sure your conscience will not be pricked by the hypocrisy, as long as your efforts continue to be directed at pimping (demonstrably, devastatingly failed) economic policies. Of course, with a caveat here and there for safety.
You need to understand - defending the economic measures of a current economy against people making wild statements that are factually untrue is NOT the same thing as a blanket endorsement of everything Bush did. Is that so hard to understand? Did you miss the part where I was vehemently opposed to his trillion dollar prescription drug benefit? Or where I was opposed to the deficits? Or where I was opposed to his big runup of funds to the Department of Education and his other big government initiatives?
If Bush had been listening to me, the deficit would be about half of what it is today. So you don’t get to tar me with being a cheerleader for every bad decision he made. Got it?
So you want credit for advocating policies that would have created deficits after the Clinton surpluses, because they would’t have been as big? “Yeah I told him to shoot himself, but I meant in the leg, not the head”. Do we need to start grading conservatives on a curve?
Well, as to deficits, your opposition, as evident even in the quotes I grabbed, was “I’m no fan of deficits, but…” Wow! In the face of such staunch opposition from their own ranks, however did the Republicans ever run up huge deficits?
“President Bush! We have to change our fiscal policies right now. We’ve learned that our rank and file are ‘not fans, but’ when it comes to deficits!”
As for what you are tarred with, your history speaks for itself. As I asked before, in your own words, “How is the Bush Economy doing now?”
I’d also like you to respond to my observation about party control of congress and history of federal deficits. I’ve presented evidence that Democratic control of both congress and the presidency is associated with better deficit outcomes than when Republicans are in the White House.
You stated
Do you have any evidence to support your assertion?
Yes, I do. I already posted it. The only period in which the size of government as a percentage of GDP came down in the modern era over an extended period of time was when Clinton controlled the White House and Republicans controlled the Congress. Mind you, I will grant that this is a very small sample size, since in fact there’s only been one time since 1947 where Republicans have controlled the Congress when a Democrat was in the White House. And I will also grant this was also a period of rapid reduction in military spending. So I wouldn’t say my thesis is proved, but it’s true that the only really sustained period of government downsizing came in those years.
I’m really not trying to make a partisan point here. I will also point out that there’s only been one time since WWII when Republicans controlled both the House and Senate and also held the Presidency, and that was 2003 to 2007. And that period saw a massive ballooning in the size of government. In fact it was Republicans who presided over the switch from govenrment downsizing to rapid expansion of government. So I wasn’t trying to claim that Republicans were better fiscal stewards - rather, that they don’t like spending proposed by Democrats, and are obstructionist, and that resulted in a government that did not grow as fast as GDP. But apparently, they’ll sign any piece of crap spending bill so long as one of their own is in the White House.
You’ve got an either-or fallacy going on here. Nobody is claiming that you ever proclaimed a “blanket endorsement of everything Bush did”.
The fact that you need to misrepresent our criticisms of your arguments with this straw man in order to defend yourself against them is an indication of the weakness of your position.
What is so hard for you to understand here? Describing the economy is not the same as advocating the President’s policies. In fact, I opposed most things Bush did domestically. I certainly opposed his big spending, I opposed his first ‘stimulus’, I opposed his prescription drug entitlement, which was one of the signature pieces of legislation of his presidency.
I also opposed Sarbanes-Oxley and most other regulatory proposals put forward by Bush.
You guys are just blinded by partisanship. You can’t even correctly read what I wrote without imbuing it with all sorts of hidden motivations and assumptions of agreement with Bush that aren’t there.
I wouldn’t have had much good to say about Bush’s economic policies at all if I weren’t routinely confronted by people making insane comments like how the economy of 2004 was a ‘disaster’ or that the 2001 recession was the worst since the Great Depression. These are just factually untrue statements, and need to be corrected when made. That doesn’t make me a Bush cheerleader - it just means I tried to fight ignorance when it presented itself.
No, I’ve just been called “Bush’s biggest cheerleader”. A few messages above this one.
Apparently, we’re reading different threads.
This sounds remarkably like, “Only the true messiah denies his divinity!” My defense of specious claims about my unwavering support for Bush is in itself evidence that my position is weak. Got it.
You said that if Bush had followed your advice the deficit would be half as big. Remember, when Bush took office we had a surplus. So you want to take credit for advocating policies that would have created a smaller deficit, rather than championing the policies that created a budget surplus.
ETA: this is not about partisanship, it’s calling people out for continuing to support ridiculous ideas like cutting taxes will increase revenue. Anyone except an ideologue would look at the evidence and see that has clearly not been the case. I don’t care if people are Democrats or Republicans. I just prefer our economic policies to be based on reality than ideology.
According to the link I provided before, which presented the average annual change in deficit in 1984 constant dollars under each president, the average annual change across all presidents from Bush to Wilson was an increase of $7.7 billion.
Now, there were four democratic presidents who never had a Republican controlled house or senate under their administration. The average annual change during their terms was $6.8 billion, and the average annual change under all other administrations was $8.0 billion. Thus, when the government has been under complete control of Democrats, the average annual increase was $1.2 billion less than under any other condition. I don’t think we need to say anything about the average annual increase when Republicans control the presidency, house and senate.
Now, your claim was “Divided government, with the purse strings controlled by Republicans who oppose Democrat policies, is the only thing that’s ever caused the growth of government to slow down. Recent history has taught us that whenever either party gains control of all branches of government, the stops come out and the spending goes wild.” The data shows that when the Democrats control the government, the growth of government has been $1.2 billion slower than under any other condition. Your assertion, made with all your typical confidence, is completely wrong. Do you acknowledge?
However, FYI, the average annual change under Republicans was an increase of $155 billion. The average annual change under Democrats was a DECREASE of $31 billion.
Tagline: Democrats are better on any economic indicator you want to choose.
No, your dishonest pretense that anybody is claiming that your support for Bush was “unwavering” is evidence that your position is weak.
If you could defend yourself against the claims we’re actually making about your arguments, you’d do that. But you can’t, so instead you make up accusations that you can defend yourself against, and pretend that that’s what we said.
No. What makes you a Bush cheerleader (although, as I apparently need to note explicitly every time this comes up, NOT an unwavering cheerleader who never disagreed with Bush’s policies) is credulous optimism of this sort:
Emphasis added. This is classic Sam Stone predictive bias. When it comes to Republicans, even when you’re complaining about things that they’re doing that you disagree with, you’re generally willing to give them the benefit of the doubt (despite massive evidence to the contrary) about the prospects for the ultimate outcome. But when you’re bitching about things that Democrats are doing that you disagree with, your pessimism is unrelenting.
I don’t understand this post. It seems to be full of facts that conflict with the meme that Republicans are better stewards of the economy. Since when does data trump preconceived opinion?
Again, people carefully spent time calling you out all along the way, but you never wavered in your partisan read on things throughout the Bush administration.
You’ve absolutely been a Bush cheerleader. You spent a long time carefully picking out the sheets, mattress, pillows, blankets and comforter. Now lay down.