|
Musicmystery -> RE: What Should the Title of Bush's Memoirs Be? (4/28/2010 4:32:57 AM)
|
Sigh.
Deny if you like. But starting two wars, not paid for, with continued presence for years, not paid for, on top of tax cuts, not paid for....geez, even a conservative can do that math.
This year's budget, Obama's first solely, is $300 billion less than the 2009 one he inherited from Bush--a reduction of 18.75%.
From there, it's a matter of our differing perspectives on the severity of health care status quo--a costly situation period. We have to address it in some fashion. So we have a start. Everybody knows it will change. Frankly, in time, we'll have to move to a public option, unless private industry decides to prove they can handle it effectively.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
It's not a matter of playing cards--it's a matter of repeating failed, expensive policies and calling them "fiscally conservative."
When Reagan started this, the national debt was $909 billion. When Bush II left office, it was $12.3114 trillion. That's 13.54 times as large in just 29 years!
Let's take out the Clinton years--$1,462 billion to $1,863 billion, an increase of 27%--and that leaves an increase of 13 and a quarter times to the Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II years.
Now, granted, this in no way supports Obama's plans. But it sure as shit points out that going back, again, to the policies that got us here just doesn't make any damn sense.
No matter how loud the Tea Party shouts.
[Before you bring it up--yes, that should all be adjusted for inflation. However, that leaves the Clinton years reducing the national debt, and I know how you hate that "accounting trick." But, just for the record--$909 billion is $2.33611 trillion in 2009 dollars--still an increase 5 and a quarter times 1980, not withstanding the consequent reduction during the Clinton years.]
quote:
ORIGINAL: cuckyman
Reagan's tax cuts ushered in more than 17 million new jobs and the prosperity began anew...the deficts were the result of him being saddled with a democrat congress that forced him to make deals he would not otherwise would have made.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sanity
There was a lot more to the history than that. Who controlled Congress when had a lot to do with the budgets, and there is the pesky fact that a lot of the Reagan deficits went towards the Star Wars programs which finally bankrupted the Soviet Union and effectively ended the cold war.
That in turn gave us the peace dividends that Clinton enjoyed.
From 1980 to 2009, there have been six Democratic Congresses, six Republican Congresses, and three split ones. Dems and Reps share this equally in terms of spending.
The split ones were the first three, the first six years of Reagan's terms--in other words, he was NOT facing a Democratic Congress. NOR did he usher in prosperity--the stock market crashed in 1987, and Bush I had to deal with double digit unemployment. The bad times even forced him to raise spending and increase taxes (sound familiar?). And oh yeah--remember the Savings & Loan crisis/bailout?
And despite Reagan's popularity--it was the economic fallout of his policies that got Clinton elected on the economy.
Now, as I said before, this shifts no blame away from Obama. But I do fervently want to establish the point that returning once again to the tax cut big military laissez-faire borrow and spend approach we've followed through Reagan/Bush/Bush is just folly.
[The Soviet Union is a side issue--Gorbachev had much to do with it, and the USSR was going to implode anyway. But even if Reagan did have an impact--that was then. The USSR is gone. Let's stop using outdated policies that (1) cost us dearly and (2) were used for an enemy gone twenty years now.]
Let's talk about Obama, though. I'm concerned too.
When a President takes office, the previous President has already submitted the budget--in this case, for 2009. $1.6 trillion dollars. 2010 is the beginning of purely Obama budgeting: $1.3 trillion--a reduction of $300 billion, or 18.75% less (and with a Democratic Congress). Yes, it's still too damn much money, but at least it is again a step in the right direction, as Clinton (yes, with a Republican Congress) did.
To the degree I'm hopeful, it's for these reasons:
1) GDP is already doing well again, from 3rd quarter of last year, and employment will follow, sooner or later, as inventories continue to sink and as consumer spending continues to rise (how soon will, frankly, probably determine the 2010 election). The stimulus spending and bailouts were one time expenses. Some of this is already coming back, sometimes at a profit.
2) The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were mistakes. But, we are at least finally dealing with them. Troop levels and spending is already down substantially in Iraq. The situation in Afghanistan is finally improving, and that too will then wind down.
3) Health care is a tremendous drain on our economy. We've finally done something. Yes, not a lot. But most importantly--we've crossed that mental barrier in the U.S. about government involvement. When all the fur is done flying, we'll make adjustments, but in the end, we will have begun to curtail our most rapidly rising expense. Granted, it's currently a mess. And also granted, both sides of this have relied on lies to exaggerate their points.
4) With the tremendous time and political capital health care took, attention can turn to other issues finally (or more substantially).
I'm concerned about the projections. But projections are just that--predictions. How many of these have we seen over the years that just didn't play out the way they were laid out? Thadius even devoted an entire thread to attacking the CBO.
Time will tell. But let us not return to what we already know doesn't work.
|
|
|
|
