Suck It Protack, You Ass
Recovering from Republican mismanagement of the economy is going to be a tough slog. And while economists agree that the recovery would have come on faster and stronger if Republicans did not work to gut the stimulus package – what got passed is working.
This is good news on two levels. Obviously the economy improving is good, but the fact that this blows the entire RNC electoral strategy out of the water is awesome.
Survey: Economists See
Recession EndWASHINGTON – The economic recovery is likely to encounter bumps in the road but more than 90 percent of economists predict the recession will end this year.
So says a survey of leading forecasters by the National Association for Business Economics. It is generally in line with the outlook from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and his colleagues.
About 74 percent of the forecasters expect the longest recession since World War II to end in the third quarter. Another 19 percent predict it will come in the final three months of this year. The remaining 7 percent say it’ll be in the first quarter of 2010.
Comment by Donsquishydishimaharishi on 27 May 2009 at 8:25 am:
I was really hoping for riots and pitchforks myself. This country still needs a major retooling
Comment by FSP on 27 May 2009 at 8:44 am:
Recessions do usually end.
Comment by RSmitty on 27 May 2009 at 8:47 am:
While I’m not in total agreement of the current methods of climbing out, based on economic theory (not Republican or Democratic theory, but text-book economic theory) of how this likely will lead to significant inflation (yet, I don’t really have an alternative, so I tend not to argue the point), you also can’t ignore what has already become undeniable history from the previous administration:
Republican mismanagement of the economy .
There is nothing inaccurate about that phrase, not a damned thing. Before some jack-ass antagonist of mine goes questioning my “membership,” there is no denying how W and his cabel totally screwed the economic pooch.
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 27 May 2009 at 8:47 am:
This has been an unusually long recession, since December 2007. It will have been almost 2 years from beginning to end and the recovery will be slow as well.
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 27 May 2009 at 8:48 am:
Smitty,
Inflation is not a problem right now. Didn’t consumer prices show no inflation at all last month. I think we have to focus on the problems we have now and worry about the problems to come later.
Comment by anon on 27 May 2009 at 8:50 am:
Recessions do usually end.
So do epidemics and wars.
The way you manage them can make all the difference.
Comment by RSmitty on 27 May 2009 at 8:51 am:
No, not now, UI. The theory has it as a latent result, usually coming from the over-authorization of dollars in the system, which has already happened. However, that’s a bad habit that started under W, so don’t misunderstand and think I am trying to lay blame today. That’s not what I am getting at.
Comment by RSmitty on 27 May 2009 at 8:52 am:
Oh, UI…
I think we have to focus on the problems we have now and worry about the problems to come later
I agree, but you also can’t ignore the cause-and-effect of your decisions today. Sometimes, the best way to mitigate a problem tomorrow is to disallow their chances today.
Comment by Geezer on 27 May 2009 at 8:54 am:
The thinking seems to be “we know how to manage inflation, so we’re not scared of it.”
Comment by FSP on 27 May 2009 at 9:02 am:
“The way you manage them can make all the difference.”
And the hundreds of billions in stimulus spending in 2010-2012 will do wonders for the recession that will be over at that point. Our kids will thank us, I’m sure.
Comment by anon on 27 May 2009 at 9:02 am:
Unemployment and low consumer demand is keeping inflation down right now. When employment and demand picks up, inflation will have to be controlled with interest rate increases. That is sort of an immutable law of economics, so higher interest rates are definitely in our future.
Modest inflation would be a good thing as long as it can be controlled.
Comment by anon on 27 May 2009 at 9:04 am:
A long period of modest inflation will make the deficit and debt smaller. Just as it makes your mortgage payment smaller.
The down side is that if it gets too high, inflation can suppress investment. That is why we need smart people in charge.
Comment by anon on 27 May 2009 at 9:07 am:
“the recession that will be over at that point. ”
Unemployment continues and peaks after a recession ends. All the relief portions of the stimulus will be needed.
Investment is all about predicting the future. Investors looked out and saw stimulus money coming, which is why there will be a recovery at the end of 2009 instead of dragging out like the 1930s.
Comment by RSmitty on 27 May 2009 at 9:07 am:
That is why we need smart people in charge.
Yup. Blew that in 2000 (going back into Primary season, too), that’s for sure.
Comment by nemski on 27 May 2009 at 9:07 am:
And the hundreds of billions in stimulus spending in 2010-2012 will do wonders for the recession that will be over at that point. Our kids will thank us, I’m sure.
I love it when Republicans complain about the budget deficit NOW while remaining silent when Bush was on a drunken spending spree.
Comment by FSP on 27 May 2009 at 9:08 am:
Who exactly remained silent? I know I didn’t.
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 27 May 2009 at 9:09 am:
Republicans are concerned about some deficit 20 years from now but don’t want to help the people who are suffering right now. Let’s give them a hint – it’s not the rich who are suffering right now, even though some of them may be embarrassed.
Comment by RSmitty on 27 May 2009 at 9:10 am:
nemski – FSP was one of the few R’s that pitched bitchiness at Bush’s economic-idiocy. He was hardly for his tax cuts + increased spending policy.
Comment by anon on 27 May 2009 at 9:15 am:
Who exactly remained silent? I know I didn’t.
Some Republicans seem to have found their voice only after voting for Bush the second time.
I remember lots of posts (now conveniently lost) on former FSP blogs defending the Bush economy.
Remember posting a graph put out by John Snow which took advantage of a three-month statisitical blip to create a graph showing falsely that tax cuts created more revenue? That is just one example.
Comment by RSmitty on 27 May 2009 at 9:17 am:
UI – in case you are also referring to what I said earlier, my point is that you can’t simply ignore (head-in-the-sand style) cause-and-effect reaction to your action today. I absolutely believe we have to help, because that is where the unabated access to the trough of so-called capitalists led us to. That, actually, was the ignoring of cause-and-effect back then.
Where I totally think they did a swing-and-miss on bailouts (going back to Bush), again thinking cause-and-effect, was they should have forced a condition that the money cancelled out the banks’ unsecured consumer-debt portfolios (of course, the consumers would have to forfeit their access of that account). Consumers, suddenly freed from that burden, possibly have cash-above-expenses and would have spent beyond staple-needs. Viola! Economy gets cash, not credit, injection. Instead, we print money (virtual, of course) to do more and more.
That’s my point. Yes, we needed to do this, despite all the cat calls stating otherwise, but it may not have been the best way to deal with it.
Comment by RSmitty on 27 May 2009 at 9:20 am:
Some Republicans seem to have found their voice only after voting for Bush the second time.
Where were those blogs pre-2004? Of course you can say that, because just about NONE of us were doing this in his first term! I fucking hate that argument, which is a blatent attempt to discredit with NO substance.
I, for one, couldn’t stand Bush in 2000 and became even more bothered when the dark overlord became his VP candidate. While consistent in my argument, how would you know that before his second term? Well, unless you knew me, you didn’t know that. Why? Because just about none of us fucking blogged then, jagazz!
Comment by anon on 27 May 2009 at 9:22 am:
Smitty – so if we check those post-2004 blogs, first post should be about how they voted against Bush, right?
Comment by FSP on 27 May 2009 at 9:23 am:
And just like that, we have been distracted from the main point, which is the long-term damage being done right now.
Comment by nemski on 27 May 2009 at 9:26 am:
Just to be clear RSmitty, you’re not really a Republican.
Comment by nemski on 27 May 2009 at 9:27 am:
FSP’s grasp of history is fleeting.
Comment by RSmitty on 27 May 2009 at 9:27 am:
Oooo…those digital footprints of mine! Speaking of which, what happened to the title of this post? That’s way more fun!
Comment by anon on 27 May 2009 at 9:29 am:
And just like that, we have been distracted from the main point, which is the long-term damage being done right now.
In 1992 Republicans gave the same bullshit warnings (you were wrong, by the way). What credibility do Republicans have on economic management?
Why should we listen to you about long-term damage, any more than you listened to us in 2000 and 2004? (we were right, by the way).
Today’s Republicans have even less standing than Dems in 2000. At least in 2000 Dems had credibility based on 8 years of peace and prosperity.
Comment by nemski on 27 May 2009 at 9:31 am:
Today’s Republicans have even less standing than Dems in 2000. At least in 2000 Dems had credibility based on 8 years of peace and prosperity.
Zing.
Comment by RSmitty on 27 May 2009 at 9:32 am:
Smitty – so if we check those post-2004 blogs, first post should be about how they voted against Bush, right?
Yes, because that was their personal burning issue.
I have no freaking clue, because I am not a blog nanny. I do know, however, that I have read many of FSP’s post over the past few years where he has criticized the then-White House for terrible and damaging economic policies and the Republican enablers that bent over while opening every door for them along the way. Funny thing is, your rub with FSP has been his defense of Republican policies that date back to Reagan and mid-90’s Newt-led policies. What Bush did was some effed up crap and it became a Republican problem when those jagazzes I mentioned earlier all bent over for him and thanked him for it. That’s why it is a Republican-owned problem…that and the fact that there were far too FEW Repubs that were willing to criticize it (until it was fashionable to do so).
Comment by anon on 27 May 2009 at 9:37 am:
Smitty – you know as well as I do that GOP punditry against spending began during the 2006 mid-term campaigns, and didn’t really pick up steam until after the election and the GOP began looking around at the magnitude of their loss. And was usually couched as full support for Bush policies “except for the spending.”
Post 2006 it was an easy cheap shot to criticize spending coming from a Dem Congress, and signed by a Prez you had already written off.
But never a criticism of spending when it mattered.
Comment by RSmitty on 27 May 2009 at 9:45 am:
Post 2006 it was an easy cheap shot to criticize spending coming from a Dem Congress, and signed by a Prez you had already written off.
(I really meant to ref the whole comment, but that would be too long)
You are right that post-2006 it was trendy, hence my point about it being fashionable to do so. Our common ground is starting!
To be clear, I am defending an individual…who, btw, usually tells me not to put myself up like that…I am not defending the party. FSP, who is a friend and who I have known for a while, thought Bush’s first stimulus (tax rebate and cut), but without any cuts in spending was horrible. W set the stage right then and there. What developed since then was the shocking laying down (or bending over) of the “so-called” fiscal conservatives. They all abandoned what they supposedly believed in, because of party unity. BLEAH! So, yes, I will defend FSP on this point, because he’s been against it. That’s why I said the rub here against him is his support of Reagan and 90’s-Newt-style governance, but when it comes to W-nomics, if you all could seriously cool the red-evil eyes for a moment, you’d see that he bitched about them all the same. Maybe not the same number of posts, but the attitude was indeed similar.
Oh, before Jason starts calculating ways to kick my ass, I am focusing on the economic policies alone. All else, I am not even touching.
Comment by Republican David on 27 May 2009 at 9:47 am:
Are you saying there is no difference between a 200 billion deficit and a 2 trillion dollar deficit in a 14 trillion economy? One could not be worried about one and be very concerned about the other and be reasonable. Just like I may be able to afford a 200K home but not a 2M home.
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 27 May 2009 at 9:59 am:
I’ve never, ever said that we should ignore the consequences of what we’re doing about the economy. All I am saying is that we have to worry about what is happening right now and not what isn’t happening right now. I see worry about inflation as an argument to do nothing right now, and I think that is totally wrong.
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 27 May 2009 at 10:01 am:
Remember, it’s the GOP punditry telling us in 2000 that surpluses are terrible and we needed tax cuts. Then the recessions started and we needed tax cuts. Then the bubble blew up and we still needed tax cuts. Now we’re in the worst recession since WWII and guess what the Republicans say? Tax cuts!
Comment by jason330 on 27 May 2009 at 10:05 am:
FSP still not apologizing for Bush. tsk, tsk.
Comment by Republican David on 27 May 2009 at 10:08 am:
Are you forgetting that we already in a slowdown before Bush took office? The tax cuts sustained us through oil price shocks, 9/11, and Katrina, and certainly did not hurt us when it came to the recession which proved shallow and quick inspite of 9/11. Are you pretending that millions of new jobs did not exist?
The Republicans are 100% correct on tax cuts. They are not correct to think that is the be all and end all of economic policy. Can we meet in the middle UI?
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 27 May 2009 at 10:15 am:
No the Republicans aren’t correct in tax policy. There was no slowdown when Bush took office, the recession started in March 2001. According to Republican logic, that means Bush owns that one.
Comment by Brian Shields on 27 May 2009 at 10:15 am:
Who knew that all that was needed was time to settle out the economic correction.
Free market, what a concept.
Comment by anon on 27 May 2009 at 10:15 am:
The tax cuts sustained us
You cannot win against a faith-based argument.
Comment by FSP on 27 May 2009 at 10:23 am:
“There was no slowdown when Bush took office, the recession started in March 2001. According to Republican logic, that means Bush owns that one.”
If I even begin to expose the ridiculos-absurdi-ness of that one, I’ll be here all day.
Comment by Donsquishydishimaharishi on 27 May 2009 at 10:39 am:
FSP said:
And just like that, we have been distracted from the main point, which is the long-term damage being done right now.
uh? What long term damage? don’t you have to wait 10/15/20 years before you get to say you are right?
Besides, major economist say your stupid talking point that this is going to hurt our kids 20 years from now is bogus. Move along Talking Point Boy…move along
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 27 May 2009 at 10:40 am:
FSP,
I’m making a snarky joke here. Protack comes here all the time and talks about “Obama’s recession.”
Comment by Delaware Republican on 27 May 2009 at 11:12 am:
Thanks for the post.
I would assume the economists you are quoting are also the same ones who predicted the current economic problems. I hope so because none of them did. None.
This recession is indeed Obama’s recession. He has taken many actions such as business takeovers, massive debt and ineffective stimulus which are his actions and his actions alone. The democrats own the economy not the Republicans.
The recession may or may not end. Clearing and reduction of inventories has been a plus but the huge rise in unemployment is not going to change for quite a while. Also, this downturn was not the normal business cycle recession but an asset based downturn. Housing prices are not going to recover to previous values for quite a while and nor are other assets (401k’s).
There will have to huge tax increases to deal with the huge deficits and most of our economic friends are suffering larger downturns than the US.
Here are the cold hard facts. Please read every word. The economy is still in big trouble.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Print ShareThisWASHINGTON — More than 90 percent of economists predict the recession will end this year, although the recovery is likely to be bumpy.
That assessment came from leading forecasters in a survey by the National Association for Business Economics to be released Wednesday. It is generally in line with the outlook from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and his colleagues.
“The economic recovery is likely to be considerably more moderate than those typically experienced following steep declines.”
One of the major forces that plunged the economy into a recession was the financial crisis that struck with force last fall and was the worst since the 1930s. Economists say recoveries after financial crises tend to be slower.
Against that backdrop, unemployment will climb this year even if the economy is rebounding, the NABE forecasters predict. Companies won’t be in a rush to hire until they feel certain any recovery is firmly rooted.
For all of this year, the forecasters said the unemployment rate should average 9.1 percent, a big jump from 5.8 percent last year and up from its current quarter-century peak of 8.9 percent. If NABE forecasters are right, it would be the highest since a 9.6 percent rate in 1983, when the country was struggling to recover from a severe recession.
Some forecasters thought the unemployment rate could rise as high as 10.7 percent in the second quarter of next year. The NABE outlook from 45 economists was conducted April 27 through May 11.
General Motors Corp., chemical company DuPont and Clear Channel Communications Inc. were among the companies announcing mass layoffs during the survey period.
With joblessness rising, consumers — major shapers of overall economic activity — likely will stay cautious, making for a tepid turnaround. And given the big bite the recession has taken out of household wealth, notably the values of homes and investment portfolios, consumers probably will stay subdued for some time.
Seventy-one percent of the forecasters believe a more-thrifty consumer will be around for at least the next five years. Americans’ personal savings rate edged up to 4.2 percent in March, marking the first time in a decade that the savings rate has been above 4 percent for three straight months.
Even as the NABE forecasters believe the country will emerge from recession later this year, they also predict the economy’s overall performance in 2009 will be rotten.
The economy should contract by 2.8 percent this year, the forecasters said in updated projections. That’s worse than the 1.9 percent drop they forecast in late February. If they are right, it would mark the worst annual contraction since 1946, when economic activity fell by 11 percent.
For the current April-June quarter, the NABE forecasters believe the economy will shrink at a pace of 1.8 percent. After that, the economy should start growing again — at a 0.7 percent pace in the third quarter and a 1.8 percent pace in the fourth quarter.
NABE’s growth projections for the third and fourth quarters are lower than those made in late February. The downgrade was based on the expectation that businesses, whose profits and sales were hit hard by the recession, will remain wary of ramping up investment.
Next year, the economy should grow by 2 percent, the forecasters said. That was lower than the 2.4 percent growth projected in February.
With a lethargic recovery expected, forecasters predict the Fed won’t start boosting interest rates until the second quarter of next year.
Because Fed policymakers expect credit and financial problems to ebb slowly, “the pace of the recovery would continue to be damped in 2010,” they said last week.
Mike Protack
Comment by RSmitty on 27 May 2009 at 11:17 am:
The tax cuts sustained us through oil price shocks, 9/11, and Katrina, and certainly did not hurt us when it came to the recession which proved shallow and quick inspite of 9/11. Are you pretending that millions of new jobs did not exist?
Um…I don’t think tax cuts and spending increases really should take any credit there. I look at what was the incredibly fast-expanding credit balloon-markets of that time (and just about all of W’s terms). THAT is what kept most of us common-folk going.
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 27 May 2009 at 11:18 am:
Some economists did predict the recession, like Nouriel Roubini (“Dr. Doom”) and Paul Krugman. There are others, but they are on the left side of the spectrum so I assume that’s why you don’t know about them.
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 27 May 2009 at 11:19 am:
Thanks for pointing out that nonsense, Smitty. Yep, those millions of jobs mostly disappeared. Bush’s job creation record is the second-worst of any president, right above Hoover.
Comment by RSmitty on 27 May 2009 at 11:26 am:
Well, and I’ve openly admitted this before, tax cuts did not a damned thing to help this household recover (still recovering) from a horrific accident suffered by my spouse at the hands of a careless jagazz who felt compelled to aggressively pass over a double-yellow and hit her head-on at 50+MPH. Naively, we used credit to pay medical until “on your side” insurance company forced us through binding arbitration only to blame child #3 for exaggerating her true injuries. Yup, we are financially devestated, but those tax cuts? Yeah, we couldn’t claim one penny of medical, either.
Hmmm…I’m feeling another Pandora post coming…
Back on topic, if the tax cuts of W’s reign were that magic wand and not the red herring the credit markets turned out to be, sub-prime and foreclosures would not have become the over-popular terms of the last many months that they have. Now, I do NOT think tax cuts are bad, but they need to be precise and spending needs to be cut as well, or you will cause a deficit…easy freaking math.
Comment by Geezer on 27 May 2009 at 11:44 am:
“This recession is indeed Obama’s recession. … The democrats own the economy not the Republicans.”
I realize the GOP strategy is to repeat lies until they enter the debate, but the country, by a wide margin, rejects this expression of your opinion that you keep asserting as fact.
Comment by RSmitty on 27 May 2009 at 11:52 am:
…but the country, by a wide margin, rejects this expression of your opinion that you keep asserting as fact.
Including the sub-group of the party that also happen to be realists.
Comment by pandora on 27 May 2009 at 12:00 pm:
I’m on it, Smitty! Oh, and those tax cuts weren’t meant for you, silly boy. They were meant for the Health Insurance hot shots – didn’t they trickle down?
Comment by RSmitty on 27 May 2009 at 12:04 pm:
They were meant for the Health Insurance hot shots
Oh, I think they trickled something down on me, alright, but I don’t believe it had anything to do with tax cuts or anything fiscal.
Comment by pandora on 27 May 2009 at 12:08 pm:
LOL – sorry, not funny. But you are clever!
Comment by FSP on 27 May 2009 at 12:13 pm:
“What long term damage?”
Uhhhm, making Bush’s deficits look like child’s play and quite possibly taking our debt to 100% of GDP over time and therefore inviting massive inflation. But please, let’s hear from your “major” economists that you read about on the Huffington Post.
Comment by RSmitty on 27 May 2009 at 12:38 pm:
LOL – sorry, not funny. But you are clever!
It’s fine, it was meant to be self-depricating.
Comment by nemski on 27 May 2009 at 12:48 pm:
But please, let’s hear from your “major” economists that you read about on the Huffington Post.
Rather them then Conservative politicians and their supporters.
Comment by jason330 on 27 May 2009 at 12:54 pm:
Funny. All of a sudden FSP thinks debt is bad. Boo hoo.
When was FSP when Bush was wrecking the economy? Oh that’s right…going to CPAC, getting his picture taken with Tom Delay and working for Bush’s re-election.
Sorry GOP. Your economic thinking broke the economy. Your ideas for fixing the mess are off the table.
Comment by FSP on 27 May 2009 at 1:09 pm:
“All of a sudden FSP thinks debt is bad.”
Jason – read comment #31.
I have never been to CPAC. I had my picture taken with Tom DeLay because he walked into a room I was in, not vice-versa.
And making personal attacks only serves to point out that you’re losing the argument.
Comment by RSmitty on 27 May 2009 at 1:15 pm:
…and that wasn’t 2004, which was a whole other conversation above.
That DeLay pic tho…you did burn it, right?
Comment by jason330 on 27 May 2009 at 1:23 pm:
Smitty,
FSP has no standing having worked for Bush and voting for him twice (never having admitted it was a mistake) and allowing himself to be photgraphed with Tom Delay.
If he finds that observation to be a personal attack, so be it. I say it provides context to my point that his GOP economic theories do not merit discussion. 2004 was not that long ago. Many of us remember it.
The GOP’s economic theories have been tried. They failed. It is not personal it is a simple fact.
The “Suck it Protack” part, that is personal.
Comment by RSmitty on 27 May 2009 at 1:27 pm:
…and here I thought we were moving on, but forgot who I was dealing with. *sigh*
Anyway, did you at least see the note about CW? We learned something today.
Comment by jason330 on 27 May 2009 at 1:31 pm:
Really? Did FSP admit that it was a mistake to vote for Bush the second time and I missed it?
Comment by anonie on 27 May 2009 at 1:33 pm:
The national debt grew by more than $4 trillion during George W. Bush’s presidency. It’ was the biggest increase by far in the national debt both in dollars and GDP under any president in U.S history.
On the day President Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion. On GWB last day it was $11.3 trillion. That’s over an 80% increase on Mr. Bush’s watch and actually reversed the debt paydowns during the Clinton Presidency.
Seven times during Bush’s eight years, the debt limit was raised, the last one to $11.345 trillion.
In the last budget documents the Bush Administration presented (before TARP and the Auto bailouts), OMB estimated that next year’s national debt would amount to 69.3 percent of the gross domestic product. That’s the highest percentage since WWII when the national debt amounted to 121.7 percent of the size of the total economy.
Now that they are out of power, republicans are very concerned about the national debt. It’s hard not to laugh at them, as one usually does with hypocrites. The real issue is when republicans were spending money we didn’t have on a misguided war in Iraq or lowering tax rates for the wealthy, it was okay. If it is to be spent on infrastructure, education, green energy, tax breaks for the middle class, it’s socialism and selling out our grandchildren.
Only time will tell if Obama’s plan will work. What we do know is the republicans plan did not work. In fact, history has shown us that republican economic theory is a boom or bust proposition that often endangers the American way of life. Republicans who today whine about fiscal responsibility should have lead with actions when they were given the opportunity. They did not.
Comment by RSmitty on 27 May 2009 at 1:35 pm:
Like I said, I forgot who I was dealing with. All arguments are now off until you get your demand.
Anyway, did you at least see the note about CW? We learned something today.
Comment by jason330 on 27 May 2009 at 1:37 pm:
anonie,
Thank you for making those points so well. I could have done that too if I was smarter.
Comment by Rebuild the Delaware GOP on 27 May 2009 at 2:49 pm:
Another Liberal Lie that Krugman predicted the recession.
Krugman:
January 17, 2008, 3:09 pm
Making predictions is hard …
… especially about the future, and sometimes about the recent past. Will we have a recession? Are we already in one? Nobody knows for sure.
I await the other economists who predicted the current economic crisis? Save yourself the effort-there were none.
You were not able to refute the simple facts, this is Obama’s recession, Obama’s debt, the Dems run the government and it is Obama’s FUBAR economy.
For the liberals who crow about the national debt under Bush, what spending should we have cut? Medicare Part D, NCLB or what? I know most of you will try the old argument Iraq but that won’t work. If Iraq was so costly why hasn’t Obama done an immediate withdrawal?
Nice try though,
Mike Protack
Comment by FSP on 27 May 2009 at 3:47 pm:
“The national debt grew by more than $4 trillion during George W. Bush’s presidency.”
“On the day President Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion. On GWB last day it was $11.3 trillion. ”
5.727 + 4 = 11.3 ??
Which numbers are you making up, anonie?
Bush maintained a 30-40% of GDP deficit his entire term. The CBO has predicted that Obama’s annual deficit will reach 80%+ within 10 years. And that’s without his version of health care reform passing, which will add another $1 trillion to the pile and push it to almost 90%.
Didn’t we get into this mess because people were borrowing too much money? Haven’t we learned that spending more than you bring in over long periods of time can be hazardous? Or will the country eventually become California?
Comment by jason330 on 27 May 2009 at 4:03 pm:
Bush maintained a 30-40% of GDP deficit his entire term.
If true (and I have not checked so I’ll assume you did), I think we can agree that George Bush didn’t have to live with the downstream results of his multiple fuck-ups.
Didn’t we get into this mess because people were borrowing too much money?
The deregulation of the financial sector was a bi-partisan fuckup. Maybe we could agree on that? I’d say that it was a the Republican economic ideology of “free markets at any cost” that put the bi-partisan fuckup into overdrive, but will not press that point.
Haven’t we learned that spending more than you bring in over long periods of time can be hazardous?
Have we leaned that? Really? When did we learn that, I wonder? Clinton figured it out. But in December of 2002, Dick Cheney said, “”You know, Paul (O’Neill) Reagan proved deficits don’t matter,”
Maybe voting for Bush/Cheney the first time was a bad idea? Maybe the second Bush/Cheney vote was a “screw the country – I’m going blind partisan” vote?
Who knows? I guess that depends on when we figured out that deficits matter.
Comment by FSP on 27 May 2009 at 4:08 pm:
Deficits always mattered.
Comment by jason330 on 27 May 2009 at 4:09 pm:
As of Obama’s election. I get it.
Comment by FSP on 27 May 2009 at 4:10 pm:
And I would say the economic crash wasn’t bi-partisan. It was non-partisan. It went way beyond political parties and had several major components to it. Anyone who says “republican policies” caused the economic crisis is either disingenuous or flat stupid.
Comment by FSP on 27 May 2009 at 4:11 pm:
“As of Obama’s election. I get it.”
No. Clearly, they don’t matter to him, either.
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 27 May 2009 at 4:11 pm:
The de-regulation of the financial sector along with too much deference to people like Alan Greenspan led to the massive clusterf*ck that we’re in now.
Comment by jason330 on 27 May 2009 at 4:12 pm:
For you, I meant. Retro-active consistency. It is all the rage among Republicans.
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 27 May 2009 at 4:14 pm:
Democrats always have to come in to clean up after Republicans. That’s just how it works. Obama is running the deficit to stimulate the economy. Like it or not, he’s following Keynesian economics. An improved economy will help close the deficit gap, but more actions will be done later. Like I said earlier, he’s concentrating on what’s happening right now. Pretending that deficits are the only thing that matter is just a way to follow Hooverian economics (you know, do nothing and watch everything fail).
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 27 May 2009 at 4:14 pm:
Jason,
That and secession.
Comment by FSP on 27 May 2009 at 4:19 pm:
“The de-regulation of the financial sector along with too much deference to people like Alan Greenspan led to the massive clusterf*ck that we’re in now.”
Which happened while Democrats and Republicans occupied the White House, and while Democrats and Republicans held majorities in Congress.
Comment by FSP on 27 May 2009 at 4:20 pm:
“For you, I meant. Retro-active consistency. It is all the rage among Republicans.”
I’ve never once wavered on that position, nor on spending.
Comment by jason330 on 27 May 2009 at 4:22 pm:
UI,
Also, “Bush kep us safe from terrorism” …provided you ignore the facts.
It must be fun to be a Republican. You can just state as a fact that Republican economic policies were never enacted, and people who think they were are flat stupid.
Comment by jason330 on 27 May 2009 at 4:26 pm:
So here it is.
Republican policies were not enacted, which did not lead to historic debt levels and FSP never wavered in his principles, because that stuff never happened.
Was Bush/Cheney ever even elected? I’m not sure now.
Comment by FSP on 27 May 2009 at 4:27 pm:
What is it with the failure to have an adult conversation on the topic here without descending into inaccurate personal attacks?
Comment by RSmitty on 27 May 2009 at 5:01 pm:
Hoo boy, once again, referring way back to long-buried comments, there really was a difference between Bush-o-fuck-o-nomics and the economic policies Dave supports, which trace to some of Reagan-era and 90’s-Newt-era. What made the Bush-o-fuck-o-nomics Republican-owned was the shocking bend-over-for-party-unity dance performed by the then-majority…by all those supposed fiscal-conservatives…that allowed eff-face to get his ill-fated policies implemented.
Now, the reason I can delineate (actual) fiscal conservatives from Bush-o-fuck-o-nomics is that they had this swagger in the 80’s and against any D-president (yes, I admit that freely). Yet, somehow, with Bush and the Dark Overlord in charge, they all freaking cowered for “unity” and did something that almost no reality-thinking pundit of any stripe could even understand. Was the economy slowing down when Bush took over? Yup. Was it shrinking, though? No. Did Bush’s Bush-o-fuck-o-nomics plan pepetuate the slowdown to the point it became shrinkage? Hell freaking yes. Somehow, someway, those “fiscal conservatives” that were so good as opposition then, sold out for Bush-o-fuck-o-nomics in the name of party unity, which is something Dave has agreed with before…but no one has put it so “eloquently” as me before. Bush-o-fuck-o-nomics – you can’t get more eloquent than that!
Comment by nemski on 27 May 2009 at 5:36 pm:
RSmitty, what fiscal conservatives are you talking about in the 80s? Not Reagan, I hope.
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 27 May 2009 at 5:46 pm:
I agree that too many Democrats bought into the Republican economic policies. One of Clinton’s worst decisions was to go along with Republican deregulation, culminating in his signing of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which led to the CDS market. Democrats becoming too much like Republicans is what led to the Howard Dean phenomenon and the reformation of the Democratic party.
Comment by RSmitty on 27 May 2009 at 5:58 pm:
nemski…when I speak of the fiscal-conservatives who bent-over, I meant the ones who were in Congress (both houses) when W took over. These posers were fiscal conservatives on the spectrum when it was against Democratic leadership (in other words, they were being the loyal opposition), but also, in rare moments, under Reagan, but especially so when they were in the minority, again playing the loyal opposition. Go forward to when they had the majority under Clinton, they imposed their view. Then, they got the slam-dunk majority, which included the White House. Then, they just got freaking drunk with power and the loyalty showed by suddenly shedding any resemblence of the so-called conservative approach and bent over for Bush-o-fuck-o-nomics, which fits no model, other than “kiss my ring, you plebean!”
This is why I am really not a fan of top-down majorities (White House and all of Congress). Too many politicians are more worried about winning, which could start as a primary. Look good as a loyalist while checking your more logical processes at the door. That is what happened 2000-2006…then we hit that “safe” and fashionable period to suddenly oppose the White House.
Comment by jason330 on 27 May 2009 at 8:59 pm:
#80 was a total non sequitur.