a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by MaxUdargo
MaxUdargo  ·  4829 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Debunking the Bunk
That's not what I see in the data. Looking at the second link, which looks at receipts as a percentage of GDP, I see drops in revenue both during Reagan's presidency and during Bush Jr.'s.

Look, don't get yourself too worked up about deficits and the national debt. Remember when Bush was president? Nobody cared about deficits. In fact, Cheney famously said that "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." It only became an issue when a Democratic president was elected, eager to pursue a Democratic agenda. The day Obama was elected the debt became an urgent national crisis and we suddenly had no money to spend.

The day Obama leaves office and is replaced by a Republican, from that day forward you'll never hear another word about deficits or the debt. The Republicans will continue to do the only thing they're good at: running up the national debt. $20 trillion, $40 trillion, $80 trillion... it will keep going higher and higher and nobody except an occasional economist crank will mention it again. The debt "crisis" is a tool to prevent Democrats from advancing their agenda, nothing more. At least we hope so, because we know the Republicans won't care about it once they're in power again.





hootsbox  ·  4828 days ago  ·  link  ·  
As for the post about nobody complained about deficits during the Bush Jr. years, that is shallow and unfounded. Many, many fiscal conservatives complained about the "spending" programs and government expansion under Bush Jr; myself included. Of course, like the current Administration, Jr. had a lot to deal with as well (if you remember the serious downturn in the economy after a certain date in 2001). Reagan had a tough economy to deal with as well, but the results began to take place 2.5 years after he took office. In my opinion, he did not veto enough spending bills. Let's also remember who was in charge of Congress during those years for the most part - they weren't represented by the elephant. Who controls spending? You can certainly discern that one. The Republicans got their "butts" kicked for spending so much if you recall as well.
fsimmons  ·  4828 days ago  ·  link  ·  
I think these people genuinely care about the debt and spending. However, I think the timing is rather conspicuous. Further, I think cutting a bunch of spending really doesn't do anything to help the economy and get people to work.
MaxUdargo  ·  4828 days ago  ·  link  ·  
I take them at their word: their top priority is preventing Obama's reelection. I don't think they care about anything else at this point.

Of course, once they control government again, that priority will be moot, and they can once again focus on running up huge deficits giving tax breaks to the super-wealthy.

Democrats tax and spend, Republicans borrow and spend. Democrats take your money and give it to poor people, Republicans take your children's money and give it to rich people.

Those are pretty much your choices, although Republicans, increasingly emboldened by what they can get away with, are starting to talk about taxing poor people ("the 50% who don't pay taxes") to accelerate the great transfer of wealth to the wealthy. So the Republicans appear to want your money as well as your children's money.

Oh well, apparently it all makes perfect sense to the American people.

mk  ·  4828 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Yes, love it or hate it, spending creates jobs.
thenewgreen  ·  4828 days ago  ·  link  ·  
But does "hootsbox" have a valid (posted above) point that much of the spending that has occurred has only introduced "temporary" job growth via short-term employment? The stimulus package hasn't had the sort of impact I had hoped for. Is this due to the type of jobs created? If so, should we be allocating more "stimulus" jobs to different sectors like R&D?
mk  ·  4827 days ago  ·  link  ·  
There has been some criticism about which projects were targeted with that stimulus. If you want to delve into the Stimulus spending, ProPublica has an amazing resource: http://projects.propublica.org/recovery/ -you can see how much was spent in your county, and on what. (There is still 150B left to spend, I believe) But, just because jobs were lost in that period doesn't necessarily mean that the stimulus jobs were temporary. If more jobs were lost than jobs created by stimulus, you'd see the same effect. I'd like to see some numbers regarding the permanence of stimulus jobs.

I do have to say that GWB's bailout of the auto industry was very smart, and Obama's handling of the GM bankruptcy was also. Those companies are profiting, hiring, and paying the government back. It's not hard to find a job if you are an engineer in MI. I have an uncle that owns a supplier. His primary customer was GM. He would have had to lay off everyone if it weren't for the auto bailout. Of course, you can criticize GM for getting into that position, but at least there were significant structural and contractual (labor made real concessions) changes made as a part of the auto bailout, -unlike the banking bailout.

hootsbox  ·  4819 days ago  ·  link  ·  
I would agree with the administrations' call on the auto industry; not to act would have been very detrimental with hundreds of thousands of jobs and related jobs lost. We will gain more by helping those industries out in the short run. By the way, the major cause of the debacle was the faucet was "shut off" in the credit markets. With 98% of all auto transactions requiring some type of credit, it was a death toll; it was NOT caused by the lack of hybrid production. Even foreign auto companies lost billions.