Nothing is ever accomplished by a reasonable man.
– George Bernard Shaw
The US has almost $15 trillion in debt, of which nearly one-third was generated in the last three years. The Republicans need a leader who is determined to stop Obama from destroying the country. “Moderates” don’t have a chance.
So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
– Revelation 3:16
Hi Steve,
You are right that something needs to be done. I would, however, be reasonable about it, and not give tax cuts while cutting social services, science, infrastructure, etc.
The wiki site on debt by presidential terms is informative: debt as a percentage of GDP goes up with republican presidents and declines with democratic presidents going back to Truman, with a minor exception of Richard Nixon’s first term. The republicans have a demonstrable penchant for sending our finances in the wrong direction.
In other words, I would not lay the blame only on Obama and the last three years.
Best regards,
Don
Don,
Democrats have controlled the Congress for six years. Congress controls the budget. When they took over, unemployment was about 5%.
Laying blame is decidedly unhelpful. What is useful is a clear repudiation of the emotional cries of “we’re broke” and a sober understanding of short term effects and the long term necessity of change. Having a long term plan in place that controls costs is essential. Forcing a draconian solution in the short term is a prescription for economic disaster.
Obama has nearly doubled the debt in three years. He needs to be shut down politically – and immediately.
“He needs to be shut down” … perfect example of an ideological and political statement. Focus on policy and real issues. Cutting taxes doesn’t create jobs in itself. Cutting spending doesn’t create jobs in itself. Cutting medicare doesn’t control medical costs.
Obama has the US speeding 100MPH towards bankruptcy. He has done the exact opposite of what he promised fiscally. His administration needs to be shut down.
As much as I disagree with the science of AGW, to blame Obama for the deficit is like blaming a parent for their child running up a huge credit card debt.
The Democrats may have been in charge of the HoR but the president is in charge of the military and Dubya loved to fight wars. Although the first was justified, IMHO, the second was just petty vindication and a lust for oil.
To continue with the credit card metaphor, G.W. fought the wars and stuck Obama with the tab. And tax cuts for the rich only get lobbed onto their pile of money. Tax cuts for the poor allow people to afford things they couldn’t before ultimately causing stimulation of the economy.
MrC
So the trillions in increased spending didn’t affect the deficit?
Don, that’s a bit of selective history. As Steve points out, congress, not the president, controls the budget. The House of Representatives are the ones to write the budget.
Now, go back to the years of Truman and discern, or demonstrate which party did what to our deficit compared to our GDP. and then check the Senate……..
Oh, I don’t have to….. its on the page you linked. Don, what color is the sky in your world?
Since 1973, (When deficit spending started) 26 years were held by dem congress. Then consider the 6 years Repubs held both houses in the 90’s when surplus’s were achieved and you can get an entirely different, yet more realistic view.
But, are you one of those people which, if Obama lost his budget battle with the repub house, you’d credit Obama for cutting the budget? I know people like to credit Clinton for doing the same, but the fact is, he lost all of his major spending battles to a repub congress.
Hi Guys,
Yeah, I was being a little slick. I did not really study the table, and on second look it is a mixed bag. Thanks for pointing that out.
I agree that blaming one side or the other is not especially productive.
At the same time, it is important to learn from past mistakes. It has been promoted from time to time that tax cuts will generate increased government revenue. I have not seen much to support this, but I am open to input.
Going forward, I think we can probably agree that something has to give, especially around the big budget items such as entitlements.
Best,
Don
Don,
Thanks for the reasoned response. As to the posit about tax cuts and revenue, go here, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/historicaltables.pdf
Now, we can point to a few remarkable things here and is probably worthy of an entire textbook other than a comment that is likely not even going to be read by the person I’m directing the comment towards. Sigh…….
First, look at the revenues after the Reagan tax cuts and Bush tax cuts. Reagan’s went in effect in 82, Bush had a series of cuts taking effect in 02,03, and 04. So, we can say that yes, increased tax receipts are a product of tax cuts. We also saw this with Kennedy’s tax cuts.
This chart though can be misleading, it only shows raw numbers, and doesn’t denote inflation rates or other economic considerations like the recession we’re trying to recover from.
Indeed this is worthy of a book. The total revenues should strictly be compared to what would have been taken in with the previous tax rates, but that is impossible. To the lowest order, all remains the same except that the higher rate means we take in more. But of course the tax rate affects the economy. The increased amounts during the early to mid 2000’s are related to the vigorous bubble that was growing at the time.
Table F-4. shows that as a percentage of GDP, we were taking in a very small fraction in 2009 as compared to 2000. That is a simple (and admittedly simplistic) argument that we are under taxed.
Don,
Your desire to see cause and effect by juxtaposition of two graphs should make you a good candidate to be a CAGW believer
Moderates can win – both bushes did. However, they are not much different than democrats when it comes to fixing the issues of the country – so give voters a bad taste and allow clowns like Obama to get elected.
The answer to a bad president is not to elect a worse one – except to the American People.
Only when running against complete idiots like Dukakis, Kerry and Gore.
Uh – all liberals are idiots!
It’s getting tiresome, holding your nose for whomever you are voting for. It’s hard to remember voting for anyone you could really feel enthusiastic about, except maybe for Reagan’s 2nd term.
With Reagan it was easy to enthusiastically support his opponent. For those of us who knew him in California, we were used to voting against the B actor.
Yes, it was easy for you to avoid truth and just conduct slurs against the person. With no substance, you have never had any factual reason to vote against the good ones, only your hatred for all things rational and sane.
You prove my earlier assertion.
Carter was busy fighting off killer bunnies. Mondale was just plain lame …..
Why did you like Reagan? Did you like his foreign policy? The marines in Lebanon? The approach to Nicaragua? His 1982, 1983 and 1984 tax hikes? His increase in defense spending? His support of Star Wars technologies?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20030729-503544.html
Carter made America feel bad about itself, like Obama does. Reagan made America feel like the great country that it is.
Why do you hate Reagan? His massive tax cuts (from 70% to 28%)? His firm stance that led to the dissolution of the USSR? The fall of the Berlin Wall? His refusal to say the nation was suffering from “Malaise”? His refusal to bankrupt the country to pull us out of the worst recession since (and still champ) the depression? instead allowing the private sector to do it?
Or do you just not like that he was effective? I lived in California from 66-72, so I am familiar with Reagan before he saved the rest of the nation. You do not sound like you are old enough to remember Carter, much less Governor Reagan.
If Reagan did anything, it was to make a lot of people feel better. He was obviously a nice guy and everybody like him. Sure.
Substantively, his policies were awful both in California (where he almost destroyed the University of California) and nationally. His firm stance against communists was a continuation of policy since Truman. His huge increases in military spending were damaging to this country. The Soviets didn’t increase their spending at all during this period. His focus on military research in questionable areas has weakened the country. Some of the research should have been funded, but with the understanding that these were research topics far from any application.
Carter had the understanding that we needed an energy policy. It is too bad that Reagan undid any progress on that front.
He was a nice guy. Sure.
It is easy to lie when you do not have any facts. However, history and the present are replete with them which basically refute your whole criticism. Apparently someone forgot to tell you that talking points do not work when the evidence is already in.
Carter understood nothing. He created a bloated bureaucracy that has yet to do anything constructive. His only redeeming quality is that Obama will surpass him in ineptness.
Thanks for listing more talking points.
You have been the only one listing talking points, All others have listed facts.
Daniel,
Please be specific otherwise evry response of yors is just more vitriol.
How was Reagan damaging etc. etc. Assertions are tiresome. As to the SOviet expenditure — please check your facts.
I listed many areas of Reagan’s policies that I thought were terrible for this country. He was very good for the country in the intagibles associated with “feeling good”, but his substance was all wrong. Reread what I wrote. Did you like the marines in Lebabon?
As to Soviet spending in the 1980’s,
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/politics/fitzgerald.html
Deebee, it should be obvious he has no facts. His list of things he did not like about Regan contained mostly lies – UC, Communists, military spending both ours and the USSR and Carter are all quickly and easily debunked with even the most cursory of google searches.
He is a new age liberal that cannot stand the fact that history is indeed treating Reagan a lot more kindly than either the contemporary media or the liberal elitists of his time did.
Another example of ideological froth. You want to label me and diagnose my state of mind rather than discuss issues. Fine, enjoy. But the problems facing the country remain and they remain complex and not subject to simple left or right solutions.
I do not want to do anything with you. I merely observed your responses and drew out the only logical conclusion based upon age, lack of data and facts, and vitriol. If you want to diagnose people based upon writings go ahead. But like all your other posts, you will be wrong.
I will see your 3rd rate writer’s opinion with a more influential opinion – backed up by FACTS:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/wais/History/history_ussrandreagan.htm
22 to 27% was very significant and substantial.
There are many views of this topic, some more nuanced than others:
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/politics/foreign/reagrus.htm
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/eloranta.military
http://www.slideshare.net/nickblackbourn/soviet-defence-spending-estimations
The last one, in particular, is interesting in discussing not only the relative expenditures of each country, but motives of each.
Reagan no doubt inspired the USA at a time inspiration was greatly needed.
The downside is that Reagan started this simplistic notion that we could have it all without anyone having to sarcafice-lower taxes, huge militatry budgets, no cuts in middle class entitlements. He may be as responsible as anyone for the $15 trillion of debt.
Reagan was really following Stockman’s ideas. And to be fair, the plan was that lower taxes were going to be a panacea only with associated cuts. The combination was politically impossible so we got the tax cuts without the spending cuts.
Not “politically impossible”, just hard. And that was the killer – for politicians rarely do things that are hard, preferring to lie and spend. It is the rare politician that actually keeps their promises upon being elected.
Sure, politics tends to get us people who can’t or don’t even want to deliver on their promises during the election. The other side of it is that elections are rarely about complexities of real problems and more about sound bites and silly simplifications.
Reagan advocated cutting entitlements, the liberal congress wouldn’t allow it. As far as the military goes, he knew the cost, and deemed the collapse of the soviet bloc as worth it. And, in my judgment, to that point he was vindicated. It was worth it. The fact that the people who came after him didn’t do the things necessary isn’t a reflection upon Reagan but rather his antecedents.
The fact is, the tax cuts generated more revenue for the federal government because of the increase of economic activity.
.
Ewww, not George Bernard shaw! He was a mad leftist.
“MrCannuckistan says:
May 29, 2011 at 1:39 am
As much as I disagree with the science of AGW, to blame Obama for the deficit is like blaming a parent for their child running up a huge credit card debt.
The Democrats may have been in charge of the HoR but the president is in charge of the military and Dubya loved to fight wars. Although the first was justified, IMHO, the second was just petty vindication and a lust for oil.”
—
I am just going to put this out there.
Obviously there was a need to do Afghanistan.
So we can skip that.
Now.
You’re GWB, you ask some questions. What’s going on, how long is it going to last ?
Answers are worldwide fanatic cult, possibly rest of the century.
Not good.
And Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires. And it will never be a good “nationbuild”. And we need a better venue for our mechanized Armed forces.
Afghanistan is bad for tanks, bad for artillery , bad for helicopters.
Iraq was an open sore. 12 years of a cease-fire.
UN handling national business in usual corrupt manner.
US and UK flying CAP over 2/3 of the country for 12 years.
Many instances of radar lock by SAM, and subsequent destruction.
Major bombing campaign in 1998 unsuccessful in unseating crazy dictator.
Second generation of insane dictator family in pipeline.
Anyone who thinks that situation was good or could have gone on another 40
years is dreaming.
So he wanted to get it off the books. Make a nationbuild right in the middle
of the enemy’s home turf, in a nation where it might be possible to do so.
Get the bad guys to flock there and kill them en masse on flat ground where our stuff works. ( And they did. But body counts are out since 1972)
All of that . But you can’t really say that on TV.
So he took the gamble. It is hard cookies and tragic deaths all around.
But not really a failure.
And the war did not break us. It was business.
And Obama seems to have misplaced several trillion dollars since he took office.
A need to do Afghanistan but do it right. GWB put minimal resources in and got minimal results out. Then he directed the majority of the effort to Iraq. Yes, it was a mess with Sadaam, but he was contained. The ideal of nation building clearly consumed GWB, but he seems to have deluded himself with the weapons of mass destruction scenario that allowed him to press the war. I think it is an easy argument that the world is better off without Sadaam, but the cost has been very high and the final result is not the kind of ideal that was originally envisioned. These wars were off the books during Bush’s tenure so they only started to cost us now.
Not ridiculous Daniel, thank you for the thoughtful reply.
I do not fully agree.
You just can’t fight our war in Afghanistan, that was obvious.
I think containment, is not a valid concept.
I think that the enemy such as he is, had a well defined, and expressed interest in Iraq, for itself, and its location. Do not underestimate the concept of getting there first.
I think that Saddam was more deluded about his WMD than GWB was.
And I don’t know enough abut the finances to say that you are wrong.
And while my brain is working:
Containment doesn’t work NK Cuba Iran and I guess Libya.
Anyhow look at it form the other side.
Bin Laden made a declaration of war against us in 1998.
What were his 3 reasons ?
1 Support for Israel
2 Sanctions against Iraq ( the containment )
3 Troops in SA
Troops were in SA to protect SA from… Iraq.
So that is 2/3 Iraq. And yet people think it isn’t part of it.
It always was.
Good points. But behind the national entities (Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc) is oil. Oil forces us to be engaged in this region and it bankrolls the forces against us.
It may take a good deal longer than we like, but when the world moves to a post-petroleum fuels, we will naturally see many players effectively defunded.