Got a Problem? Blame Bush!
BY: NCViking
The Evil One has been has been out of office for 7 months now, but that doesn’t stop Democrats, liberals and President Obama himself from blaming all of his woes on the previous POTUS. Enough already!
Both Clinton and Bush left bad things and good things in the wake of their two terms at the helm. This is quite typical of every turnover of power to another administration. The Bush administration entered office in 2000 with a recession and a bust of the stock market. Fortunately, President Clinton left with sharp domestic policies, fiscal responsibility and budget surpluses. But, Clinton foreign policy apathy and his failures left Bush with a disjointed apparatus that allowed the deadliest attack on American soil in history and left a smoldering powder keg mess in Iraq; two crisis’ that ultimately shaped his presidency.
The Obama administration came into office with a recession and a housing bust that set up the worst economic crisis in 25 years. Bush domestic policy apathy and failures could be blamed for allowing a booming economy to bust along with terrible Fed policy and lack of congressional oversight. Spending in the Bush years created budget deficits, but he also reorganized the government, fought two wars and kept Americans safe while growing the economy. Those same deficits were also shrinking fast before TARP. Bush left a strong intelligence apparatus, a world without Saddam, and an effective foreign policy and security system, all of which Obama rhetorically riled against on the campaign trail but is actually finding quite appropriate and useful as POTUS.
Obama did not inherit anything – he bought it. He campaigned for two years prior to the election to get it, the good and the bad. He wasted no time after taking office to challenge the economic crisis in his way, with some success and some failure. Obama has also ballooned spending and the budget deficit to absurd levels while pushing massively expensive government initiatives at a time when many Americans are begging for responsible restraint, thus further aggravating the situation. Only time will tell how this all shakes out, but like his predecessor, the crisis Obama is challenged with is just one of several (some yet unknown) that will shape his presidency. Obama needs to start taking responsibility for this and his actions. Bush is not president anymore – get over it.
- Why Are We Still Listening to Ben Bernanke? - August 31st, 2010
- Favre Returns for One More Year - August 18th, 2010
- Mosque at Ground Zero and the First Amendment - August 18th, 2010
- NFL Predictions 2010 - August 10th, 2010
- Basil Marceaux ... Magnificent! - July 23rd, 2010
You defend the Bush Administration by blaming the previous guy. Nice touch if it weren’t in a post about the fallacy of blaming previous administrations.
There are some factual errors in your post, but mostly it is a justification for the problems Bush left behind. One glaring factual error is your reference to TARP. You state “Spending in the Bush years created budget deficits, … Those same deficits were also shrinking fast before TARP. ”
This is wrong, with or without TARP. The increase in the deficits may have been shrinking, but the total deficit number, either the highest (or second highest) of any president in history, ever were certainly piled sky high. Whether Bush’s deficit is $3T or $6T, that number hasn’t shrunk any. It will be paid if it is ever paid by your grandchildren. And all of that was before TARP.
You state: “Obama did not inherit anything – he bought it. He campaigned for two years prior to the election to get it, the good and the bad.”
It could be said: that Bush inherited nothing – he bought it by campaigning for two years (he certainly didn’t start in Nov of 1999), and on an on…”
Let’s tackle Bush, AQ, and the previous administration. Bush didn’t “see” anything wrong with AQ when he got into office, and didn’t see anything wrong with it after repeated calls by his intelligence group in the month before 9/11. After 9/11, we are still trying to “fix” the problem 8 years later. Bush left us two unfinished wars (fact, not a complaint).
Yet defense of Bush is that he inherited the intelligence structures from Clinton.
Now for Obama. It is a fact that the economy has been sliding and crashed in 2008. If Obama relies too much on blaming the other guy, he’ll only get a certain amount of mileage out of it.
I am struck by the irony that you post brings and how it parallels the Maher post.
I ‘illustrated’ the good and the bad Presidents have to deal with from a previous administration using examples to make a point. Not sure what is ironic in this as I am not defending any of them. I point out good and bad things.
No there was not and the points were sourced.
Yes, it can. That is the point and no president is immune to this criticism. Obama is playing politics with it, he is president, and I am criticizing him for it.
Bush got intelligence of a nebulas threat, nothing specific to act upon. The intelligence apparatus was in complete disarray, disjointed and not talking to each other. It was a mess – this is not in dispute. Bush had to confront an unprecedented al Qaeda threat and an Iraq mess, challenges that ultimately shaped his presidency. And he also bought this by running for and winning POTUS. The known challenges (Iraq) and the unknown or misunderstood ones (al Qaeda).
The war in Iraq was left in drawdown, Saddamless and no threat to the neighborhood or the world. Afghanistan is a continuing war that little disagreed with. I will be surprised if it even gets settled under Obama because of the nature of the country and the role Pakistan plays in prolonging it. The country is getting ready to have yet another round of free elections soon, which is good.
Not sure how, but seeing as you often misinterpret what is said here, it doesn’t surprise me.
I stand by all of my points, including your misrepresentation of Bush’s dismal deficits.
Your link to deficits proves my point. The link you provided shows that on April 30, 2007, the deficit for that quarter was smaller than expected — which is my point: the increase in the total deficit was slowing.
Bush added somewhere between $3T and $6T to the overall deficit. To say that on April 30, 2007 it only went up by an additional $120 Billion is no comfort at all. How about paying down the debt for a change (like his predecessor).
It is a bit like the pyromaniac taking credit for only burning down 2 buildings instead of 5. Nice job.
My point about your post parallels the Maher post still stands also.
Where did I deny Bush ran up deficits? Where in the WSJ article do they do this? The budget deficit was shrinking, not going up – this is a fact I point out that you do not dispute. I assume what you mean is that the overall debt total he ran up was not shrinking. Obviously, unless he was running surpluses, which he wasn’t. I agree, paying down the debt would have been nice and I urge Obama to do the same, though it looks like he is taking Bush spending to another level. Why do you not criticize Obama for this? I criticized both of them in the post.
Yes nothing good, only bad … big bad Bush the dumb chimp.
And it stands here for all to read.
NC Viking,
In your post you said, specifically “Those same deficits were also shrinking fast before TARP.” My statement was that only the rate of growth (the increase) was slowing.
My correction stands. Your link was to a posting that the rate of growth had slowed.
The difference is not minor.
I don’t think you need to go off the deep end and call Bush “Yes nothing good, only bad … big bad Bush the dumb chimp.” The discussion was a correction to your post about deficits.
I resent you downgrading chimps by associating them with Bush’s tarnished record. After all, no chimp ever ran a deficit.
The article points out how the deficit was shrinking over a 26 month span and predicted to continue. The WSJ reiterated this. It is certainly a trivial point of contention in the overall context of the post.
Hardly. It was a pithy response to you seriously comparing Bush to a pyromaniac, one who deliberately sets fires for pleasure. Yes, that’s what he is, just like he’s a dumb chimp and evil.
Again, let’s be ultra clear. The deficits were rising, period. The rate of their growth was shrinking.
Your belaboring the obvious makes me wonder why it is important to sugar coat the obvious deficits.
Bush wasn’t compared to a pyromaniac. No reader would think that – except, and to my surprise, you. I think you want to debate from a ridiculous point. The pyromaniac term was to demonstrate graphically that spending more than we take in at a slower rate is hardly any better than burning down a smaller number of homes.
Keep digging… it gives more chance to repeat that Bush spent, and spent, and spent, …
Let me jump in and have some fun too. Mike, you seem to mixing up debt and deficits. The debt continued to rise, but the deficits continued to shrink. Viking made no error here. The link does not back you up unless it proves that you do not know the difference between debt and deficit.
Cutting the deficit is good. It is not perfect, since there is adding to the debt still, but it is still better than it is now. At its previous pace, it would have soon reached surpluses, but instead we will soon be so far in debt, Bush will be remembered fondly by all but you.
Unlike you, we are conservatives who can find fault in our own side when they do not live up to their principles. You seem to take some glee in us criticizing Bush. We have no problems pointing out his real faults, not his fake ones you seem to see.
I take no glee in pointing out the correction or Bush’s record. I’ll thank you not to attribute good to “we are conservatives” whatever “we” are in that sentence, while attributing the opposite (as in “unlike you”) to me. You have no facts to back up your assertion.
The “good” in your parlance is continued demonstration of the pyromaniac example. Bush runs up the deficit and you “good” gentlemen see the “good” in that runaway spending is gently coming down. Homes are still burning but all you see is “glee” and “good”. How about not burning down the house to begin with?
I’ll expect you conservatives to support Obama if the deficit spending slows down in the coming months as the recession cedes an the recovery raises revenues. I expect you gents to count that as a “good” and an example of the “accomplishments” of the president.
I suspect that you would not see Obama in any good light, even if the deficits dropped. You therefore award “good” points to the president you voted for and desperately want to have accomplished some “good,” while none to the current president. Nice.
That’s the type of reasoning persistent in these blogs, with Maher, with this post, with others, where you conservatives use a different set of ideal to measure conservatives and liberals. Oh the hypocrisy of it all..
Sure you do. Let me quote: “Keep digging… it gives more chances to repeat that Bush spent, spent, spent,…” That appears to be a little bit of happiness, regardless of what you say.
We are those of us who author this blog. Unlike you is that you are not a conservative. I have plenty of facts… they are in the tens of thousands of words you have typed into this blog.
Again, you don’t seem to understand the difference between debt and deficit. The deficit is equal to the spend minus the intake. It is a negative number. If that number decreases, it is a good thing. It is not a great thing to have a negative number, but I would rather have less of a bad thing than more of it. That is a good thing. You can run up the debt with a deficit, but shrinking deficits are not “running up the deficit.”
I don’t suppose that you would feel that Reagan or Bush cutting taxes leading to economic growth was a good thing, did you? Supply siders feel (with proof) that lower tax rates increases money into the system, and creates wealth. It works best when accompanied by corresponding spending cuts. In my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, if Obama succeeds, it will be because his programs failed and were cut. I don’t see how building duck ponds will increase the national wealth… I just don’t. If the deficit goes down with unemployment, and the economy picks up, it won’t matter what we think at all. President Obama will write al about it in his third autobiography after his second term. If things carry on the way I expect them to, he will have time to write two or three more autobiographies in retirement.
You suspect, huh? We apperently have different opinions on what is good or bad. Destroying this nations health care system and raising taxes on the most productive people thereby destroying national wealth would not be “good” in my opinion, even if some indicators do improve. Europe is not a model I want the US to copy.
You are probably right. We are so unfair, unlike Paul Krugman, Kos, and other left-wing nuts.
And you misinterpret the facts…
- the Keep digging comment was not in reference to glee, rather it was a reference that each reply posted centered (still centers) on Bush’s record. It was a move on comment.
- your reply to the question on “we are conservative” ignored the main topic and focused on the semantic narrow. The sentence is, in full, that you should not attribute “good” to conservatives and the opposite to liberals. You chose to catalog the numerical quantity of replies as if numbers or replies was any proof or justification. Not so “good” of you, but does read like a Palin moment.
- I do understand the definitions you were trying to draw between debt and deficit. It doesn’t matter to this debate one twit.
- The reason it doesn’t matter is because of my point: excessive spending is bad and just because the size of the gap has shrunk due to a growing economy does not resolve Bush’s excessive spending. He kept going at it.
- Your reply to my “will you support Obama” if his rate of deficit spending decreases, a purely apples-to-apples comparison, was to talk about Reagan and Obama autobiographies. Are you capable of answering a straight question with a straight answer?
- Whether you like Kos or not, you are merely rationalizing your behavior by pointing to the other guy, which by definition is more hypocrisy.
We can discuss health care, but you gents seem to want to discuss Bush’s deficits.
Nope.
And you make it sound like you are uncovering some hidden knowledge that we are hiding. We admit that Bush’s spending was not ideal, although it was better that it is today. His inability to use a veto pen for 6 years was a joke. We have said that in numerous postings here. This is not a mystery that we are fiscally conservative, and that we do not like Republican pork spending anymore than we we like Democratic pork spending.
It is you who have misunderstood the point. Perhaps a comma would have helped “Unlike you, we are conservatives, and we can find fault in our own side. It is not a prescription that conservatives are good, just that we in this blog can find fault in our own side. I have never heard you criticize an Obama or Democratic policy. That is clear.
It does, because reducing the deficit is good. You seem to think that it is bad, as if you can take a multi-trillion dollar economy and cut out multi-billions without a hint of repercussion. Reduction is the first step to surplus. You are looking for perfection from the GOP, but can overlook all the warts on the Dems side. We call it like we see it. Oh the hypocrisy!
Taking out the war, the former President reduced discretionary spending every year after 9/11. That was pretty good. On the other hand, President Obama has taken excessive spending to a new level, and you find no fault in that. For once, I would like to see you apply the same criticisms to Obama that you use on Bush. It would only make logical sense.
I don’t see Obama deficit spending decreasing. It is like asking me, “if aliens landed in your front yard, would you serve them tea or coffee?” To quote Jessie, “the question is moot.” Let’s say this, if Obama decides not to implement his tax increasing, budget busting, deficit increasing programs, I will applaud him. On the other hand, if he does not, it will be because he failed, not because he changed his mind. That is a straight answer.
I dismissed premise of your statement, and used sarcasm to do so. The reasoning in this blog is sound, and well thought through. You may disagree, and we appreciate you side, but that does not mean that is hypocritical. We are just right (Right) and they are just wrong (Left).
Actually, Obama likes to discuss Bush. You like to support the President’s side, which brings the conversation there. I would like to say that the purpose of this article is drawing attention to Obama’s problem blaming the former administration. You seem to not notice that and think this is about health care. It is not.
Again, you avoided the question: Will you support Obama if his rate of deficit spending decreases as you have supported Bush?
You are wrong to suggest that Bush reduced the deficit. The article is clear that tax revenues rose faster than Bush could spend it, netting a reduction. There isn’t a single piece of spending he reduced.
The rest of your post does not matter as much of it is self serving drivel.
I support ARRA because it works for technical reasons. I think it beats just dropping tax rate. When companies face significant drop in revenues as they are doing now (example, Microsoft -17%), no one is really focused on increase spending.
Your assertion that I happen to support it because its a Dem plan is just plain wrong, and stupid as Palin.
You tend to see everything in a single dimension, from right/conservative to left/liberal. Everything to you is either a lefty or or conservative idea. Thankfully, there are people who can reason about the world in more than one dimension.
Every time I read you say left or right, conservative or liberal, it reinforces to me the single dimension of your world view.
I don’t see the conservative introspection and the picking apart of what is wrong with conservatives in the way you herald it in your replies. Rather, I see a begrudging acceptance that many things went wrong with Bush.
No I didn’t.
Mike, you are smarter than this. Regardless if he reduced spending or raised revenue, the net result is the same… HE REDUCED THE DEFICIT. Try to stop making something out of nothing.
I suppose when you disagree, you default into this position, by dismissing the direct answers to the comments and questions you present. That is a weak tactic, and readers can see right through it.
I did not say that you supported it because it was a Dem plan. I said that I have never seen you disagree with ANY Dem plan. We are free thinkers on this blog, but you appear to be taking your talking points from the Daily Dean. “Our side is always right, and their side wants children to go hungry at night.”
To the contrary, I make generalizations based upon fact. There are always exceptions to the rule. I would not argue a point if I did not think it was correct, although that might be part of your deep four-dimensional thinking.
Because you either choose not to understand was a generalization is, or you actually do not. There are clear distinctions between the right and the left, the conservatives and the liberals, the Republicans and the Democrats. For you to say that there is not is wishful and naive thinking.
This is because when we use our words and thoughts to call it like we see it, you somehow see it as shallow and pointless. On the other hand, when you state the Democratic talking points each and every day, you seem to think that is open minded, thoughtful, and reasoned. You never see fault in the person you support, and that makes you so much wiser than us.
How shallow of me.
There are plenty of examples of self-serving drivel in your post. Readers can see it. For example, you ascribe to your position attributes like “right(Right).”
Well reasoned arguments and not rationalizations will convince your readers.
It is pure rationalizing to say that “he reduced the deficit.” It is clear from the article that he did nothing. Tax revenues increased netting a reduction in the deficit.
If you are as keen on a straight answer as you claim, then I would say you should say it like it is: “tax revenue growth reduced the quarter to quarter deficit” (and not so much Bush did it).
Readers should observe that taking (or giving) credit where, as in this case, it is not due is not an accomplishment.
This blog is replete with examples of complaining about the opposition’s tactics by using the opposition’s tactics. I have already given examples.
No amount of argument will contradict past posts.
I would not pride myself in making generalizations. They are always wrong. You’ll argue that they are always right, with exceptions.
You have also said that you make “generalizations based on fact.” The comment is in and of itself a caricature of a person without experience, or thought, or thoughtfulness.
The statement you make is a lie. If you have made decisions on that statement, then you have made decisions based on an untruth. A fact about an individual cannot be generalized to a small group, never mind to a large and diverse population.
Let me show you examples of how UNTRUE generalization can be:
- it would be wrong to say that “since I know many conservatives are creationists, therefore a group conservatives have a propensity to believe the Earth is 6,000 yrs old.”
- it would be wrong to say that “since I know many conservatives are birthers, therefore as a group conservatives question Obama’s birthplace.”
- it would be wrong to say that “since conservatives opposed to government giveaways (no free lunch), therefore all conservatives would be opposed to clunkers for dollars.”
- it would be wrong to say that “since conservatives on this blog listen to conservative talk radio, all conservatives listen to conservative talk radio.” Wait, that one might be true.
There are many people on the center (those whom you would call liberals) and those who are liberal (who you would call far left) that believe in libertarian rights. They believe that we should be free to smoke pot, free from government snooping, free to make decisions about their bodies.
The point of the above (I know I’ll lose you here soon) is that there are many dimensions in politics. Those libertarian dimensions are the same shared by some conservatives.
Therefore any generalization about the Right is automatically wrong because it is a generalization.
yup.
drivel, rationalizations, hypocrisy, convoluted sentence structure to avoid the obvious… If you were right you wouldn’t need all of that. You would just point to a fact.
You don’t.
Good grief. If you really think that me believing that my posts are self-serving drivel because of I believe I am correct, all while our posts are littered with criticism of the Republicans, then you are completely beyond reason.
One man’s well reasoned argument is another man’s rationalization. I have read your responses and they appear to me to be excuses making for the Obama-Pelosi camp.
You could not be further from the truth. The economic policy of the last administration had the effect of increasing tax revenues. They increased for a variety of reasons, but mostly because the environment created by the Bush administration and GOP Congress. They are both part of the same equation. You trying to make excuses does not make it a failure. Just your failure to prove your point.
See above response. Economic conditions attributed to Bush policy created this environment that allowed for greater revenue.
This is a partisan blog. We believe in conservative values, and speak for them. When the main spokesman for the opposite point of view come out against that in their policies, we go after them more than we go after our friends. That is like going to war with an enemy and asking a solider why he did not shoot his own guy as well as the other guy. After all, they both had guns, right?
You are soooooo wrong about this. I think you are confusing stereotypes and generalizations. For example, and generalization is that women are generally smaller than men in physical build. That is not always wrong. That is generally correct. There are exceptions to that rule, as there are some taller or stronger wwomen and smaller and weaker men. Those exceptions do not make the generalization incorrect, but rather support the notion. Generalizations are the beginning of wisdom. You start with a principle that outcomes are most likely a certain way and then have a better idea of future outcomes will occur. Fools ignore generalizations, but other fools take generalizations as hard and fast rules.
Only if you are a fool.
You are proving to me that you do not understand the difference between a hard and fast rule and a generalization.
It would be incorrect to say that most conservatives are creationist, but it is not foolish to say that more creationists are probably conservative.
Since 35% of Democrats believed that Obama was not born in the US, and the same amount or a little greater of conservatives feel the same, it is not a good generaization. An incorrect generalization is not a correct one just because you typed it or spoke it. You still need to be close to the truth. It is a pretty safe generalization that Birthers are more likely to be Truthers. Facts back up generalizations. Generalizations still need to have truth. Yours, so far have not.
It would be safe to say that more conservatives are opposed to CFD than liberals. If there are more exceptions to your generalization, then it is not a good generalization.
One could say that a good generalization would be most conservatives listen to conservative talk radio. That does not mean the liberals do not, or that all conservatives do, but on the other hand, I don’t think that listenership of talk radio rises to that level.
You have proven to me through your examples that you do not understand what a generalization is, but rather that you are just angry.
You should not speak for those on the center. You are not in the center. Liberals are not in the center either. You are a liberal. Centrists flip flop back and forth and do not tend to have a well defined affliation to one party’s policies. You do. I am a libertarian. I believe in keeping the government out of most of everything. I do not believe that your “bodies” comment was meant for anything but abortion (because it certainly does not apply to other areas of [government controlled] health care). You obviously do not care about the life of the child. His or her civil rights do not count?
Being mostly a libertarian, I am there. I just don’t know how you fall into that definition.
Twisted reasoning at best, nonsensical at worst.
So… if I understand that blather above… if I provide a simple explanation, I am being evasive, but if I provide a long answer with justifications and reasoning, then I am being convoluted. I am worse than I thought.
I have never criticized Republicans or conservatives. I observe and comment on facts. The center fact of this discussion has been deficits.
My comments are critical of generalizations because specifically in your case they are stereotypes about the left. I gave you one example about libertarians. I also point out where I believe your comments contradict what you say.
You can describe yourself as right, and everyone else as wrong. It’s called drivel.
Separately, on on purpose, to draw attention to it, I am very surprised that you noted that the $3T deficit was, to quote you “Economic conditions attributed to Bush policy created this environment that allowed for greater revenue.”
And you thought the $800B would do nothing….
You don’t always criticize Republicans or conservatives, but our blog responses are full of your complaints about both. You have, on the other hand, never criticized a Democrat or a liberal. There is a fact you did not comment on before. Your hypocricy in pointing out our alleged hypocricy is blinding. You have raged against Bush for his deficits, but complement Obama on how he uses his.
I don’t make stereotype comments unless they are in gest (for example, liberals cry more than conservatives). I don’t think it is a bad generalization, for example, that Dems believe in bigger central government than the GOP. That is not a stereotype, that is a generalization.
I don’t hold opinions that I know for a fact are incorrect. I can call myself right unless I am wrong. As far as everyone else, they are not all wrong… just the ones that disagree with me.
I don’t know if I understand what you are getting at. In the midst of fighting two wars and recovering from 9/11, Bush managed to reduce deficits every year in the second half of his presidency. That was accomplished, in no small part, by Bush fiscal policy, which was tax cuts, business friendly, open trade. It encouraged job creation, rising GDP, and continued economic development and technological innovation. That is what I am talking about. Tax cuts worked. Yes, deficits remained, but considering the wars we were fighting, it is amazing that it was not worse.
My comments on this blog are counterpoint to your partisan postings. I observe and comment on facts.
I think it is noteworthy to compare Bush and Obama deficit spending.
- Bush’s deficits were $3T to $5T, Obama’s $800B on ARRA. They are different orders on magnitude!
- Your partisan posts began earlier this year with a single focus on Obama deficits while ignoring Bush’s. I corrected that for you. That is hardly hypocritical.
- You use self serving drivel trying to call my balanced approach hypocritical. Readers can judge for themselves.
Bush spent $3T to $5T. You attribute all of the growth of the economy to the $1T tax cut to the rich, none to the largest elephant in the room, the huge deficit spending.
This is an example of why I call out this kind of unbalanced thinking.
Things need to make sense. You can be as partisan as you want but this reader isn’t buying it. I am sure others will see the fallacy of your logic.
You may want to observe that not a single accredited economist agrees with your conclusion on Bush.
Most economists, and I agree with them, feel that tax cuts CAN BE an incentive to the economy. They just don’t think that the Laffer Curve will do the heavy lifting that you want it to. In fact almost all of them have dropped the Curve as an explanation.
My own analysis of the economy is that jobs will lift the economy out of the recession. Jobs spur growth. That is why I support Obama’s ARRA approach.
More invalid economics from you. You simply cannot raise the deficit by $3T to $5T and then claim that you are reducing anything.
I post this here because it also shows the significant lack of coherence on your part about economics
- the rise in jobs never generated sufficient revenue, even with the multiplier to cover the deficits. If they would have, then revenues would have exceeded expenses. Another rather bland (shall I say failure) for Bush.
- you cannot simply “encourage jobs.” You can create the economic conditions that create jobs.
- open trace and job creation were Clinton hallmarks, but I doubt that you would ever credit him with anything
What is interesting about this exchange is that for Obama, he is running two wars and the worst recession in 47 years, yet the deficit is only $800B.
Your self serving drivel: $3T to $5T debt for Bush (worst of any president) and it is “amazing that it was not worse.”
Drivel, pure drivel.
I don’t disagree with your first part. Your second part is true too, but how accurate is another question. Plus, if you were a true balance to this post, you would also acknowledge that your side can be wrong as well. You can not, or do not do that. Counterbalance is therefore, quite inaccurate.
You are on uneven ground here. I’ll bite.
Correction number 1. Bush’s fiscal year deficits never exceeded the $407 B he had in fiscal year 2008 up until 2009. On the other hand, the numbers are not in yet for his half of 2009, and he is responsible for the part up until the mid-year budget approval and the Porkulus. Those are all Obama’s. I would assume that the $3T-5T are a pretty good reflection to the amount of debt added to the economy during Bush’s years. Yet DEBT and DEFICIT are words you keep messing up, either on purpose or because of a lack of understanding to what the difference is, desptite pleas to the contrary.
Our posts earlier in the year were about the current event of the day: Porkulus and the massive budget increase. We were looking forward. Like Obama, you cannot stop looking backwards towards Bush.
I feel confident in that approach.
Correction 2: The GOP (Bush and Congress OVERSPENT $3T to $5T. They spent much more. This is not a good thing, but the fact that spending did not keep up with revenues is a good thing, although it could have been better. This is an example of why I call out this kind of unbalanced thinking.
Obama’s proposed deficits (CBO and White House) make the Bush deficits look like child’s play.
This is another example of a false generalization. Plenty of credible economists are supplier siders. You may not agree with them, but that does not make them unaccredited. Economics is also not an exact science. I understand there are differences of opinion. There are plenty of gifted minds on the other side who disagree with me. That does not make them stupid, unaccredited, or liars. It just makes their opinion differerent from the economists who feel the same way I do.
Government is fraught with waste. It is inefficient, and unproductive. It can not compete against the private industry in any way shape or form, unless it uses its power of tax and legislation to destroy its opponents. It can subsidize or outlaw its competitors, all while being inefficient and overly bureaucratic. The “jobs” that have been “created” are not the kids of jobs that are lasting and beneficial in the long run. In fact, the average length of time for a stimulus job is 35 hours. I would rather put the money into the hands of business owners with a profit motive. They will hire the workers for lasting jobs and add greater long term benefit to society. I am NOT against road construction or infrastructure projects that need the government to work. I just don’t think that the government should take away money from the most productive and give it to the least productive entities on the planet: governments.
If you understood the difference between debt and deficit, then this would make sense to you. You continue to prove that you do not.
So say you. I have proven over and over again that you do not even understand the basic terms of economics, so what do you know?
If you consider a single tax collection as the generator of revenue. Taxes are gathered from the same dollar spent over and over again. It is a multiplier. You may not see that, not appreciating supply side economics, but that is how it works.
And you can destroy private enterprise by creating terrible business conditions. Private business in Venezuela will continue to suffer under crushing leftist policies of Uncle Hugo. Private health care can also suffer (as in Britain and Canada) by back-breaking regulations. Government encourages the private sector to create jobs by getting out of the way: lower taxes, less regulation, positive language (for political leaders), and fiscal policy that allows this.
To the contrary, Clinton failed in 1993-95 with Democratic Congresses, and then did what he needed to do for the last 6 years of his terms and had success. He led by mostly getting out of the way and partnering with the GOP Congress in needed changes. He also benefitted from peace and cutting programs that created less spending. It was a perfect storm that help lead to future failings like 9/11. To be clear, 9/11 was not Clinton’s fault, but a systemic failure on the system who thought the threats of the world were over… This is just like the financial crisis of 2008… we thought low interest rates and cheap money were forever. Bush was not to blame for that any more than any other individual. It was a system failure.
Distortion on your part. Iraq is pretty much over (not a hot war anymore) and Afghanistan is much smaller. Also, his $800B addition to the debt was in his first 2 months, not over 8 years. The CBO and White House have Obama debt in the tens of trillions, making Bush’s debt increase look like chump change.
It could have been worse because 9.11 was the worst attack on our soil in modern times, and the country regained its footing rather quickly. Worse, because attacks could have kept coming. Worse because we could have fallen into a state of panic and been in a depression that resembled the Great Depression. Worse, because if today’s crisis is any sign as to what these Democratic majorities would have done in 2001, one could only assume that their reaction to 9/11 would have been to introduce socialized medicine.
We agree that the other person is spouting drivel. But as you said before, I know I am right about this.
Since there is all this talk of drivel, I wanted to interject the definition of “Drivel.”
Drivel
noun – saliva flowing from the mouth, or mucus from the nose; slaver.
I know, it’s used as a verb, but the definition was too good to pass up!
In that case, Mike has me nailed!
The opinions I express here are counterpoint (not counterbalance as you misquote) to the positions the authors to this blog provide. The counterpoint is to items I disagree and can provide an informed opinion.
I do not have to bash both sides of whatever you happen to think is the left or the right.
To argue that somehow I have to bash both sides is to impose on these responses a responsibility that you freely chose not to take. Add ludicrous to the drivel and hypocrisy in your responses.
I am quite familiar with those terms. I am surprised at your response, but this will clarify (at least to any reader) what we mean
- the $3T to $5T is Bush’s debt, the excess between expenditures and collections, from his first through last budgets.
- that debt can be defined as a deficit during a specific period of time, say a month, a quarter, a year, or the entire presidential term.
- the growth in the economy, the entire growth, over those 8 years, the cumulative effect of all incentives, natural growth, and all multipliers is expressed in the growth of GDP and in tax revenues.
- there is simply no getting around the fact that tax revenues did not keep pace with the enormity of the Bush debt. Tax revenues never grew to wipe out the deficit in any time period. Not even for a single quarter; not even for any single year.
Those are facts. You can say I don’t understand it, you can try to move the issue to the last half of 2008, but you can’t change the facts.
- another fact is the cumulative jobs number. Less people were employed on the day when GWB left office than when he entered office. I’ll post a link in a follow-up.
- in 2000, 71.9% men aged 16 and over were employed; in 2008, 69.1%
- in 2000, 57.5% women aged 16 and over were employed; in 2008, 56.5%
I will note one correction to your reply. I correctly pointed out that the raise of jobs never generated sufficient income to offset the budget deficits. You attempted to indicate that my reply was a “single tax collection.” I was using the aggregate of all tax revenues collected, which would include all multipliers.
I stand by my usage and numbers. If you think we should be using different numbers or a different measure then my all means please present your case.
In your single dimension view of the world, anyone left of you is headed down to Socialism ala Snr Chavez. That is very far from what is going on.
Obama is not going to crush small business or the middle class. That would be a good topic for another thread. But why are you taking us down that road in this thread?
You posted that Obama’s debt was for his first two months. Accurate, but disingenuous and irrelevant. How much credence can you build?
It is hardly the case that Obama plans to spend $800B every two months. The timing of ARRA was made necessary because conditions were worsening quickly. While most administration and congressional estimates estimated 9.5% unemployment without ARRA and 8% with it, actuals are headed easily into 11% territory with it.
ARRA is something you should support if everything in your book wasn’t anti-Obama. It has at least $400B in tax cuts, and it has the clunkers program your bloggers like.
John McCain says ARRA has been working.
Your reply above has a long justification about the perfect storm created by 9/11. The same could be said about the need for ARRA. Of course a partisan guy like you can see only justification and rationalizations for Bush’s failures and are perfectly happy to declare failure with Obama just 6 months in office. We’ll let readers decide.
In a way to wrap up this thread, I’ll go one step further in the failures and achievements of the Bush Administration.
- George Bush accomplished NOTHING during his eight years. Nothing.
- He DID NOT keep America safe
- He deposed Saddam based on faulty intelligence (which should raise concerns) and at the cost of (a) young men’s lives, and (b) blowing the budget
- He failed to capture Bin Laden or dismantle AQ
- He lost more jobs than were gained
- He lost 40% of the DOW (oops on that one)
Go ahead, prove me wrong
LOL Windy
Here’s the link I promised
http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/odd-numbers/2008/09/25/2000-vs-2008
I just wanted to thank Windy and NCViking for a great and informative post and discussion and express my amazement that Mike, after repeatedly misconstruing and misunderstanding the definitions and difference between deficit and debt, could not admit even that single mistake, or send any of the blame he places on Bush toward the current resident of the office.
I could and do criticize many of the actions taken in the Bush presidency. Yet, even if Bush was piling on the debt as Mike alleges, Obama has long since put Bush to shame. So I agree, Bush blew it in regard to spending. But even after 8 years, Bush could never touch the levels Obama is achieving within his first 12 months in office.
Go ahead, rip Bush, I really don’t mind. But if you’re going to rip Bush, at least throw a little bit Obama’s way, when he’s making spending mistakes that are exponentially worse.
Thanks for reading Josh. It does seem like basic economics. You reduce the deficit, that is a good thing… not a great thing since you are still carrying a deficit and adding to the debt, but less debt is always better than more debt, right? None of us make excuses for Bush, but why our friend will never admit any error on the side of the Dems is a ongoing mystery to us. We have called him out on it several times, and he never comes clean.
Trackbacks
Should I Surge or Should I Go … | The Great Illuminator
10.2% Unemployment! How’s that Porkulus Workin’ for Ya? | The Great Illuminator
Leave your response!
Our Growing Debt
Countdown Timer
in 26 months, 0 weeks, 3 days, 0 hours, 39 minutes, 52 seconds
Latest Illuminations
Subscribe to Posts
Categories
Authors
Archives
Center Links
Conservative Links
Great Forums
Liberal Links
The Great Illuminator
Most Commented
Tags