SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Apr 21, 2011 9:16:48 GMT -5
You realize it was an opinion piece, right? You state these things as though they are undisputed facts. They are not. The tone of your statement implies that an OpEd by one of America's most highly respected Economists, one in which he cites an abundance of factual evidence from Ryan's own plan, should be treated as just someone's opinion... like, say, Donald Trump's "opinion" that Obama's birthplace is seriously in question..... or am I simply inferring something that was not your intent?
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Apr 21, 2011 9:20:43 GMT -5
Alan S. Blinder is not from the notoriously conservative Wall Street Journal but a professor at Princeton University and former member of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors. The Journal merely published his article, just as the Washington Post publishes articles from the likes of George Will and Charles Krauthammer. Blinder is a also a former Vice Chairman of the Fed, and one of the most highly respected economists in the world. FYI: The Economics Department at Princeton is, arguably at least, regarded as the #1 such department. And, if you were attempting to suggest we should minimize his views because he was a member of Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors, what's wrong with that? During Clinton's 8 years, the economy added 22 million jobs, enjoyed outstanding growth, and resulted in the first US Budget Surpluses in Decades - a feat previously considered to be unthinkable - especially after Reagan and Bush 1 ran up unprecedented (in peace time) and extraordinary deficits. Compare that to the the Bush/Cheney ("deficitis don't matter") admin which incurred the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, and the 8 million jobs lost. Given the choice -- on objective terms of actual economic performance -- would the rational man choose Republican Economic policy? Simply because he's an educated person doesn't mean he is unbiased or apolitical. Heck, Krugman won a nobel prize and he's a liberal Edited.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Apr 21, 2011 9:37:07 GMT -5
If anyone is actually interested in reading a comprehensive analysis of the steps taken by the US Govt (Bush and Obama admins, Congress, and the Fed) to deal with the 2008 global economic meltdown, it is linked below. The study was undertaken by Prof. Alan Blinder, and Dr. Mark Zandi of Moody's analytics and an advisor to presidential candidate John McCain.How the Great Recession Was Brought to an End There is a link to the study at the bottom of the page linked above.
Excerpts -- From July, 2010 The U.S. economy has made enormous progress since the dark days of early 2009. Eighteen months ago, the global financial system was on the brink of collapse and the U.S. was suffering its worst economic downturn since the 1930s. Real GDP was falling at about a 6% annual rate, and monthly job losses averaged close to 750,000. Today, the financial system is operating much more normally, real GDP is advancing at a nearly 3% pace, and job growth
The U.S. government’s response to the financial crisis and ensuing Great Recession included some of the most aggressive fiscal and monetary policies in history. The response was multifaceted and bipartisan, involving the Federal Reserve, Congress, and two administrations. Yet almost every one of these policy initiatives remain controversial to this day, with critics calling them misguided, ineffective or both. The debate over these policies is crucial because, with the economy still weak, more government support may be needed, as seen recently in both the extension of unemployment benefits and the Fed’s consideration of further easing.
In this paper, we use the Moody’s Analytics model of the U.S. economy—adjusted to accommodate some recent financial-market policies—to simulate the macroeconomic effects of the government’s total policy response. We find that its effects on real GDP, jobs, and inflation are huge, and probably averted what could have been called Great Depression 2.0. For example, we estimate that, without the government’s response, GDP in 2010 would be about 11.5% lower, payroll employment would be less by some 8½ million jobs, and the nation would now be experiencing deflation.
When we divide these effects into two components—one attributable to the fiscal stimulus and the other attributable to financial-market policies such as the TARP, the bank stress tests and the Fed’s quantitative easing—we estimate that the latter was substantially more powerful than the former. Nonetheless, the effects of the fiscal stimulus alone appear very substantial, raising 2010 real GDP by about 3.4%, holding the unemployment rate about 1½ percentage points lower, and adding almost 2.7 million jobs to U.S. payrolls. These estimates of the fiscal impact are broadly consistent with those made by the CBO and the Obama administration.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 21, 2011 10:12:12 GMT -5
Saxa, in fairness, I think a number, albeit small, of Americans would choose the Bush/Cheney years for perfectly rational reasons.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Apr 21, 2011 10:36:49 GMT -5
If anyone is actually interested in reading a comprehensive analysis of the steps taken by the US Govt (Bush and Obama admins, Congress, and the Fed) to deal with the 2008 global economic meltdown, it is linked below. The study was undertaken by Prof. Alan Blinder, and Dr. Mark Zandi of Moody's analytics and an advisor to presidential candidate John McCain.How the Great Recession Was Brought to an End There is a link to the study at the bottom of the page linked above.
Excerpts -- From July, 2010 The U.S. economy has made enormous progress since the dark days of early 2009. Eighteen months ago, the global financial system was on the brink of collapse and the U.S. was suffering its worst economic downturn since the 1930s. Real GDP was falling at about a 6% annual rate, and monthly job losses averaged close to 750,000. Today, the financial system is operating much more normally, real GDP is advancing at a nearly 3% pace, and job growth
The U.S. government’s response to the financial crisis and ensuing Great Recession included some of the most aggressive fiscal and monetary policies in history. The response was multifaceted and bipartisan, involving the Federal Reserve, Congress, and two administrations. Yet almost every one of these policy initiatives remain controversial to this day, with critics calling them misguided, ineffective or both. The debate over these policies is crucial because, with the economy still weak, more government support may be needed, as seen recently in both the extension of unemployment benefits and the Fed’s consideration of further easing.
In this paper, we use the Moody’s Analytics model of the U.S. economy—adjusted to accommodate some recent financial-market policies—to simulate the macroeconomic effects of the government’s total policy response. We find that its effects on real GDP, jobs, and inflation are huge, and probably averted what could have been called Great Depression 2.0. For example, we estimate that, without the government’s response, GDP in 2010 would be about 11.5% lower, payroll employment would be less by some 8½ million jobs, and the nation would now be experiencing deflation.
When we divide these effects into two components—one attributable to the fiscal stimulus and the other attributable to financial-market policies such as the TARP, the bank stress tests and the Fed’s quantitative easing—we estimate that the latter was substantially more powerful than the former. Nonetheless, the effects of the fiscal stimulus alone appear very substantial, raising 2010 real GDP by about 3.4%, holding the unemployment rate about 1½ percentage points lower, and adding almost 2.7 million jobs to U.S. payrolls. These estimates of the fiscal impact are broadly consistent with those made by the CBO and the Obama administration. So the recession was over by July 2010?
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Apr 21, 2011 11:37:11 GMT -5
Let's look at this rational man.
The democratic budget plan submitted to Congress (the only democratic plan) right now maintains what was supposed to be a very short term government spending boost to almost 30% of GDP into the distant future. There are no material reductions in government spending. The proposal for Medicare, Medicaid and SS is no change in any program. Despite agreement by even the head of the democratic party that onerous corporate tax rates are keeping investment capital off shore, there is no change in either the rate or approach to corporate taxes. The documents states that personal tax rates will be required to rise to levels up to 88% on individuals to support this plan. The CBO has stated that not only is the plan not sustainable for the government but they can see no way the entire US ECONOMY is viable with this economic plan.
It is not hard to see that a rational man might reject this economic plan. In fact they did in overwhelming numbers in the last election. Polls right now show much more support for Ryan's plan that the democratic plan. Whether the Gang of 6 can garner more support and sway the path forward in any way prior to the next election remains to be seen. But it will be a lot closer to Ryan's plan than the democratic plan.
|
|
|
Post by badgerhoya on Apr 21, 2011 12:47:41 GMT -5
If anyone is actually interested in reading a comprehensive analysis of the steps taken by the US Govt (Bush and Obama admins, Congress, and the Fed) to deal with the 2008 global economic meltdown, it is linked below. The study was undertaken by Prof. Alan Blinder, and Dr. Mark Zandi of Moody's analytics and an advisor to presidential candidate John McCain.How the Great Recession Was Brought to an End There is a link to the study at the bottom of the page linked above.
Excerpts -- From July, 2010 The U.S. economy has made enormous progress since the dark days of early 2009. Eighteen months ago, the global financial system was on the brink of collapse and the U.S. was suffering its worst economic downturn since the 1930s. Real GDP was falling at about a 6% annual rate, and monthly job losses averaged close to 750,000. Today, the financial system is operating much more normally, real GDP is advancing at a nearly 3% pace, and job growth
The U.S. government’s response to the financial crisis and ensuing Great Recession included some of the most aggressive fiscal and monetary policies in history. The response was multifaceted and bipartisan, involving the Federal Reserve, Congress, and two administrations. Yet almost every one of these policy initiatives remain controversial to this day, with critics calling them misguided, ineffective or both. The debate over these policies is crucial because, with the economy still weak, more government support may be needed, as seen recently in both the extension of unemployment benefits and the Fed’s consideration of further easing.
In this paper, we use the Moody’s Analytics model of the U.S. economy—adjusted to accommodate some recent financial-market policies—to simulate the macroeconomic effects of the government’s total policy response. We find that its effects on real GDP, jobs, and inflation are huge, and probably averted what could have been called Great Depression 2.0. For example, we estimate that, without the government’s response, GDP in 2010 would be about 11.5% lower, payroll employment would be less by some 8½ million jobs, and the nation would now be experiencing deflation.
When we divide these effects into two components—one attributable to the fiscal stimulus and the other attributable to financial-market policies such as the TARP, the bank stress tests and the Fed’s quantitative easing—we estimate that the latter was substantially more powerful than the former. Nonetheless, the effects of the fiscal stimulus alone appear very substantial, raising 2010 real GDP by about 3.4%, holding the unemployment rate about 1½ percentage points lower, and adding almost 2.7 million jobs to U.S. payrolls. These estimates of the fiscal impact are broadly consistent with those made by the CBO and the Obama administration. So the recession was over by July 2010? Technically yes -- according to the NBER it ended in July 2009. Doesn't mean the economy is / was healthy, just that it wasn't in recession.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 21, 2011 13:06:00 GMT -5
If anyone is actually interested in reading a comprehensive analysis of the steps taken by the US Govt (Bush and Obama admins, Congress, and the Fed) to deal with the 2008 global economic meltdown, it is linked below. The study was undertaken by Prof. Alan Blinder, and Dr. Mark Zandi of Moody's analytics and an advisor to presidential candidate John McCain.How the Great Recession Was Brought to an End There is a link to the study at the bottom of the page linked above.
Excerpts -- From July, 2010 The U.S. economy has made enormous progress since the dark days of early 2009. Eighteen months ago, the global financial system was on the brink of collapse and the U.S. was suffering its worst economic downturn since the 1930s. Real GDP was falling at about a 6% annual rate, and monthly job losses averaged close to 750,000. Today, the financial system is operating much more normally, real GDP is advancing at a nearly 3% pace, and job growth
The U.S. government’s response to the financial crisis and ensuing Great Recession included some of the most aggressive fiscal and monetary policies in history. The response was multifaceted and bipartisan, involving the Federal Reserve, Congress, and two administrations. Yet almost every one of these policy initiatives remain controversial to this day, with critics calling them misguided, ineffective or both. The debate over these policies is crucial because, with the economy still weak, more government support may be needed, as seen recently in both the extension of unemployment benefits and the Fed’s consideration of further easing.
In this paper, we use the Moody’s Analytics model of the U.S. economy—adjusted to accommodate some recent financial-market policies—to simulate the macroeconomic effects of the government’s total policy response. We find that its effects on real GDP, jobs, and inflation are huge, and probably averted what could have been called Great Depression 2.0. For example, we estimate that, without the government’s response, GDP in 2010 would be about 11.5% lower, payroll employment would be less by some 8½ million jobs, and the nation would now be experiencing deflation.
When we divide these effects into two components—one attributable to the fiscal stimulus and the other attributable to financial-market policies such as the TARP, the bank stress tests and the Fed’s quantitative easing—we estimate that the latter was substantially more powerful than the former. Nonetheless, the effects of the fiscal stimulus alone appear very substantial, raising 2010 real GDP by about 3.4%, holding the unemployment rate about 1½ percentage points lower, and adding almost 2.7 million jobs to U.S. payrolls. These estimates of the fiscal impact are broadly consistent with those made by the CBO and the Obama administration. I didn't read the article so please tell me what it says about the thunderous increase in the country's debt.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Apr 21, 2011 13:56:53 GMT -5
So the recession was over by July 2010? KC, perhaps you are familiar with the quote from Abraham Lincoln, Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt FYI -- it also applies to the written word. A recession is defined as: TWO CONSECUTIVE QUARTERS OF NEGATIVE GDP GROWTH US GDP 2008 -- BUSH/CHENEY Q1 > -0.7% Q2 > +0.6% Q3 > -4.0% Q4 > -6.8% 2009 OBAMA Admin starts Jan 21 of Q1 Q1 > -4.9% Q2 > -0.7% Q3 > +1.6% -- US Breaks out of Greatest Recession since '30s Q4 > +5.0% 2010 - OBAMA Q1 > +3.7% Q2 > +1.7% Q3 > +2.6% Q4 > +3.1% A couple of other points, As of January, 2011, US Home Values have declined by 26% -- GREATER than the decline in Home Values during the Great Depression -- 25.9% The Net Worth of Americans dropped by $15 TRILLION from 2007 - 2009. Far and away the largest such drop ever recorded and the second largest percentage drop, after the Great Depression. The US Economy lost 8 million jobs as a result of the recent Economic Crisis, and has added back about 1.5 million during Obama's admin - not adding fast enough, but considering the devastation inherited, pretty remarkable. After suffering a catastrophic collapse during the recession, The US Stock Market has DOUBLED in value during Obama's term. So yes, I'd say Obama's economic team has done a remarkably effective job. Not done yet, but vastly better off than we were two years ago.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Apr 21, 2011 14:05:58 GMT -5
Let's look at this rational man. The democratic budget plan submitted to Congress (the only democratic plan) right now maintains what was supposed to be a very short term government spending boost to almost 30% of GDP into the distant future. There are no material reductions in government spending. The proposal for Medicare, Medicaid and SS is no change in any program. Despite agreement by even the head of the democratic party that onerous corporate tax rates are keeping investment capital off shore, there is no change in either the rate or approach to corporate taxes. The documents states that personal tax rates will be required to rise to levels up to 88% on individuals to support this plan. The CBO has stated that not only is the plan not sustainable for the government but they can see no way the entire US ECONOMY is viable with this economic plan. It is not hard to see that a rational man might reject this economic plan. In fact they did in overwhelming numbers in the last election. Polls right now show much more support for Ryan's plan that the democratic plan. Whether the Gang of 6 can garner more support and sway the path forward in any way prior to the next election remains to be seen. But it will be a lot closer to Ryan's plan than the democratic plan. Hoyawatcher, at least you put some actual numbers in your post. You and I both know, however, they do not represent the long term budget plan the President outlined during his recent talk at GW, they are simply taking the current trends - based on reaction to a dire economic emergency -- and play them out as though nothing will change. IF that were accurate, you and I -- and everyone else in the country -- would be out protesting in DC right now. But of course, they aren't. Given what the Republicans did during the Bush/Cheney years, and what Obama has accomplished during his first 2+ years - and what he outlined as a plan for going forward, the evidence supports the President -- especially over the Ryan plan which is heavy on ideology and bereft of economic reality.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Apr 21, 2011 14:15:21 GMT -5
I didn't read the article so please tell me what it says about the thunderous increase in the country's debt. It says the the "thunderous increase" in debt was created largely by the Reagan, Bush I and Bush II admins. Bush II in particular was the most irresponsible because there was no economic impetus (let alone necessity) for doing so. Rather, it was done to pursue strictly ideological/political goals with no concern whatsoever for the long term viability of the US economy. Those factors were: - 3, not one, but 3 Bush Tax cuts largely weighted to the wealthiest Americans. - Two wars, one necessary and one catastrophic war of choice in Iraq - A massive, government give-away to the pharmaceutical companies NONE of the above was "paid for" via cost-cutting or tax increases When Obama took over in the midst of economic catastrophe, there was no choice but for the government to increase spending to compensate for the rapid, downward spiral of consumer and corporate spending with no end in sight. Using this short term, emergency -- and very successful -- strategy as an indicator of future spending is beyond misleading, especially when ignoring the root causes of the crisis and the alternatives to the bold actions taken.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Apr 21, 2011 14:19:55 GMT -5
So the recession was over by July 2010? KC, perhaps you are familiar with the quote from Abraham Lincoln, Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt FYI -- it also applies to the written word. Wow! Burn! You really got me there. I'll go back in to my hole now (and try to find some overused quotes to fire your way).
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Apr 21, 2011 14:38:02 GMT -5
That was the actual budget put forward by Obama. The comments from the CBO are specific to the budget put forward by Obama. The speech the president made is not a proposal or a budget or anything other than a campaign speech. If/When he resubmits his budget then he has made a serious proposal.
The reality is that the president took a pass on outlining any change in his budget which was the document bereft of any economic reality. Heck they didn't even pass a budget for last year with overwhealming majorities in Congress - even in the dead period after the election. He has distanced himself from even his own debt commission with some exceptions for photo ops. Certainly hasn't incorporated any of the proposals in his budget plan. I would contend that while the left dismisses the protests that are occurring, the reality is that the recent elections were indeed a major shift and rebuke of the Obama approach to spending and debt. And if anyone thought there was a realistic shot in hell that the Obama budget would pass there would be actual riots in the street. There may be once gas prices hit $5 and inflation comes to the fore as it is doing.
Obama hoped he could put forward a sham budget and receive all the kudos for bashing the evil republicans once they put forward anything remotely looking like a cut. They took the bait and he has pounced. Funny thing is he is falling in the polls as folks in the middle realize he really means to spend at the level he proposed - or as close to it as he can.
As to the Bush/Cheney years, they had their faults but they were pikers compared to what is going on now. And specific to the cause of the recession, the major cause was the housing crisis which was a multifaceted muck up including a democratic passed bill that mandated easy credit for marginal homeowners, an out of control Fannie and Freddie as well as major league accounting standards issues for AIG and other large derivatives holders. Bush ain't my favorite but his budget deficits were not the major cause of the problem. To his credit he did try to reform Fannie and Freddie but was rebuked twice by a democratic congress. Fannie and Freddie are now being scaled back to almost nothing. He tried to reform SS but got no where. Maybe he should have been heavier on the FASB and the ratings agencies but that normally ain't the president's focus. But he does get the blame.
FWIW the Ryan plan is no more "heavy on ideology" than any other budget plan. Obama has an ideology of government controlled solutions on healthcare, etc. and Ryan has a market based focus. Please don't tell me Obama's atrocious health reform bill isn't ideological. And seems to me making the numbers match or at least be in the same zip code has a lot more "reality" than what the president put forward. Even the CBO doesn't think Obama's budget is reality.
Obama thought he could rope a dope and bash republicans all the way to the 2012 elections. At this point it doesn't appear that he will be able to do that. It may change. I wish he had been more responsible in his budget but he wasn't.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 21, 2011 16:12:58 GMT -5
I didn't read the article so please tell me what it says about the thunderous increase in the country's debt. It says the the "thunderous increase" in debt was created largely by the Reagan, Bush I and Bush II admins. Bush II in particular was the most irresponsible because there was no economic impetus (let alone necessity) for doing so. Rather, it was done to pursue strictly ideological/political goals with no concern whatsoever for the long term viability of the US economy. Those factors were: - 3, not one, but 3 Bush Tax cuts largely weighted to the wealthiest Americans. - Two wars, one necessary and one catastrophic war of choice in Iraq - A massive, government give-away to the pharmaceutical companies NONE of the above was "paid for" via cost-cutting or tax increases When Obama took over in the midst of economic catastrophe, there was no choice but for the government to increase spending to compensate for the rapid, downward spiral of consumer and corporate spending with no end in sight. Using this short term, emergency -- and very successful -- strategy as an indicator of future spending is beyond misleading, especially when ignoring the root causes of the crisis and the alternatives to the bold actions taken. Uh, how about telling me what the debt was at the start of the Obama administration, what it is today and what the budget he submitted says it will become. Obama has been president for 2 1/4 years. When are you going to recognize the bulk of the increase in the debt occurred under Obama's watch and stop blaming Bush for everything? What I was saying in my earlier post is, if you claim Obama got us out of the recession (and, it was not even in the same ballpark as the great depression - I know, I was there) - then you must accept responsibility for the enormous debt increase under Obama/Pelosi/Reid. If you say it was necessary, fine, but please acknowledge the result on the debt.
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Apr 21, 2011 16:24:00 GMT -5
So the recession was over by July 2010? KC, perhaps you are familiar with the quote from Abraham Lincoln, Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt FYI -- it also applies to the written word. A recession is defined as: TWO CONSECUTIVE QUARTERS OF NEGATIVE GDP GROWTH US GDP 2008 -- BUSH/CHENEY Q1 > -0.7% Q2 > +0.6% Q3 > -4.0% Q4 > -6.8% 2009 OBAMA Admin starts Jan 21 of Q1 Q1 > -4.9% Q2 > -0.7% Q3 > +1.6% -- US Breaks out of Greatest Recession since '30sQ4 > +5.0% 2010 - OBAMA Q1 > +3.7% Q2 > +1.7% Q3 > +2.6% Q4 > +3.1% A couple of other points, As of January, 2011, US Home Values have declined by 26% -- GREATER than the decline in Home Values during the Great Depression -- 25.9% The Net Worth of Americans dropped by $15 TRILLION from 2007 - 2009. Far and away the largest such drop ever recorded and the second largest percentage drop, after the Great Depression. The US Economy lost 8 million jobs as a result of the recent Economic Crisis, and has added back about 1.5 million during Obama's admin - not adding fast enough, but considering the devastation inherited, pretty remarkable. After suffering a catastrophic collapse during the recession, The US Stock Market has DOUBLED in value during Obama's term.So yes, I'd say Obama's economic team has done a remarkably effective job. Not done yet, but vastly better off than we were two years ago. Please, please, please tell me you're running Obama's campaign in 2012!!!
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 21, 2011 17:18:17 GMT -5
It says the the "thunderous increase" in debt was created largely by the Reagan, Bush I and Bush II admins. Bush II in particular was the most irresponsible because there was no economic impetus (let alone necessity) for doing so. Rather, it was done to pursue strictly ideological/political goals with no concern whatsoever for the long term viability of the US economy. Those factors were: - 3, not one, but 3 Bush Tax cuts largely weighted to the wealthiest Americans. - Two wars, one necessary and one catastrophic war of choice in Iraq - A massive, government give-away to the pharmaceutical companies NONE of the above was "paid for" via cost-cutting or tax increases When Obama took over in the midst of economic catastrophe, there was no choice but for the government to increase spending to compensate for the rapid, downward spiral of consumer and corporate spending with no end in sight. Using this short term, emergency -- and very successful -- strategy as an indicator of future spending is beyond misleading, especially when ignoring the root causes of the crisis and the alternatives to the bold actions taken. Uh, how about telling me what the debt was at the start of the Obama administration, what it is today and what the budget he submitted says it will become. Obama has been president for 2 1/4 years. When are you going to recognize the bulk of the increase in the debt occurred under Obama's watch and stop blaming Bush for everything? What I was saying in my earlier post is, if you claim Obama got us out of the recession (and, it was not even in the same ballpark as the great depression - I know, I was there) - then you must accept responsibility for the enormous debt increase under Obama/Pelosi/Reid. If you say it was necessary, fine, but please acknowledge the result on the debt. There's a reason why it was not in the same "ballpark." We have a group of people to thank for that. They won an election in 2008. The debt issue is real, and I would not diminish it. What I would diminish is any idea that the Republicans know what they are doing on this issue, that Rep. Ryan is credible on policy issues of this kind*, etc. Buying into that not even three years after the Bush era near-collapse of our markets requires a startling level of naivete. What we have not heard is any estimate of how many jobs the Republicans think they could have created with their magic. I don't expect to hear such a calculation, and I think we all know why. * See his votes during the Bush II administrations.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Apr 22, 2011 5:17:21 GMT -5
Uh, how about telling me what the debt was at the start of the Obama administration, what it is today and what the budget he submitted says it will become. Obama has been president for 2 1/4 years. When are you going to recognize the bulk of the increase in the debt occurred under Obama's watch and stop blaming Bush for everything? It sure would be convenient for you if everyone would just buy that line "Stop blaming Bush". But let's look at the numbers. When W took office, he inherited a smoothly running US economic machine. One that was operating at a $250 Billion Annual Surplus. He immediately turned it into an annual deficit -- via the 3 rounds of tax cuts, 2 wars, Prescription Drug plan and large expenditures in discretionary spending. In other words, Bush turned the surplus into a deficit immediately, and ran increasing deficits annually, long before the economic collapse. Eight years later when he handed it back -- after driving it off a cliff -- it was running an annual Deficit of $1.4 TRILLION (for Fiscal 2009 which started October 1, 2008). That's a NET performance from Plus $250 Billion to MINUS $1.4 Trillion, or a total of $1.650 TRILLION negative performance. Now just how long do you expect it to take to reverse a calamitous performance like that? I guess if I were you, or if I were the Republican Party, or if I were GWB, I'd be hoping and praying that everyone would forget me as soon as possible too.
|
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Apr 22, 2011 14:38:57 GMT -5
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Apr 22, 2011 14:47:58 GMT -5
Thanks for that link. It's always been strange to me to hear the whole 'the top 1% pay 35% of all taxes and the bottom 50% pay none!!' argument as if that is something that should make me think that our tax system unfairly burdens the rich. How do you not hear stats like that and think boy we sure have a lot of poor people and the rich are VERY rich.
|
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Apr 22, 2011 14:55:34 GMT -5
Thanks for that link. It's always been strange to me to hear the whole 'the top 1% pay 35% of all taxes and the bottom 50% pay none!!' argument as if that is something that should make me think that our tax system unfairly burdens the rich. How do you not hear stats like that and think boy we sure have a lot of poor people and the rich are VERY rich. It's the state and local taxes and really balance it out. The lowest 20% makes 3.7% of total income but pay 12.3% of state/local taxes. The top 1% makes 20.3%, but only pays 7.9%.
|
|