2009.08.19
Conservative: Blame Bush for bad economy
Bruce Bartlett, a leading conservative economist, has a great piece in The Daily Beast in which he lays out an incredibly strong case that Bush's stewardship of the economy was a disaster that laid the foundation for the current mess and that until conservatives "once again hold Republicans to the same standard they hold Democrats, they will have no credibility and deserve no respect."
Among the strongest section was comparing the performance of the Bush economy to the Clinton economy. In short, there is no comparison:
• Between the fourth quarter of 1992 and the fourth quarter of 2000, real GDP grew 34.7 percent. Between the fourth quarter of 2000 and the fourth quarter of 2008, it grew 15.9 percent, less than half as much.
• Between the fourth quarter of 1992 and the fourth quarter of 2000, real gross private domestic investment almost doubled. By the fourth quarter of 2008, real investment was 6.5 percent lower than it was when Bush was elected.
• Between December 1992 and December 2000, payroll employment increased by more than 23 million jobs, an increase of 21.1 percent. Between December 2000 and December 2008, it rose by a little more than 2.5 million, an increase of 1.9 percent. In short, about 10 percent as many jobs were created on Bush’s watch as were created on Clinton’s.
• During the Bush years, conservative economists often dismissed the dismal performance of the economy by pointing to a rising stock market. But the stock market was lackluster during the Bush years, especially compared to the previous eight. Between December 1992 and December 2000, the S&P 500 Index more than doubled. Between December 2000 and December 2008, it fell 34 percent. People would have been better off putting all their investments into cash under a mattress the day Bush took office.
• Finally, conservatives have an absurdly unjustified view that Republicans have a better record on federal finances. It is well-known that Clinton left office with a budget surplus and Bush left with the largest deficit in history. Less well-known is Clinton’s cutting of spending on his watch, reducing federal outlays from 22.1 percent of GDP to 18.4 percent of GDP. Bush, by contrast, increased spending to 20.9 percent of GDP. Clinton abolished a federal entitlement program, Welfare, for the first time in American history, while Bush established a new one for prescription drugs.
RSS feed 
Gobbleygook. He failed to mention how Bush killed the economy which leaves your whole argument in the ditch. Congress does the budget, not the President. We had steady growth while Republicans were running Congress. Under the Democrats, we have a financial quagmire and the Democrat media is trying to spin the blame to Bush.
No wonder we are in such trouble. The Democrats are too busy blaming Bush to work on the problem. 9.5% unemployment. Change we just have accept.
Comment by Henry — August 19, 2009 @ 2:42 pm
But...but...but...Clinton had SEX with an intern!!!!
Comment by Art Hill — August 19, 2009 @ 2:47 pm
"Bruce Bartlett, a leading conservative economist, has a great piece in The Daily Beast in which he lays out an incredibly strong case that Bush's stewardship of the economy was a disaster that laid the foundation for the current mess and that until conservatives "once again hold Republicans to the same standard they hold Democrats, they will have no credibility and deserve no respect."
Take "economy" out of that sentence and replace it with...heck practically anything! Foreign policy! Domestic policy! Diplomacy! Whatever the heck else it was he did for 8 years.
Comment by Kristen — August 19, 2009 @ 2:53 pm
"Bruce Bartlett was one of the original supply-siders, helping draft the Kemp-Roth tax bill in the 1970s. In the 1980s and 1990s, he was a leading Republican economist. He now considers himself to be a political independent. He is the author of Reaganomics: Supply-Side Economics in Action and Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy . His latest book, The New American Economy: The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward, will be published by Palgrave Macmillan in October."
Henry, this guy is hardly a democrat.
Comment by Kristen — August 19, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
I agree Kristen.
Comment by VT Hokie — August 19, 2009 @ 2:59 pm
Henry,
You are wrong in every praise of Republicans and every condemnation of Democrats. Democrats always do better on the economy. As President and as Congress. Always. See my posts on this thread - http://blogs.roanoke.com/rtblogs/roundtable/2009/08/14/tarbutton-health-care-doesnt-need-more-government-involvement/#comments and this one, for proof that has not been refuted (or even acknowledged by you or others) - http://blogs.roanoke.com/rtblogs/roundtable/2009/08/14/breaking-republicans-for-death-panels-before-they-were-against-them/#comment-58261
And as far as "the Democrat media" - the Daily Beast is hardly Democratic. And Bruce Bartlett helped come up with the "supply-side" nonsense. Hardly a Democrat. The facts are simply not on your side.
Comment by SteveA — August 19, 2009 @ 3:03 pm
Step outside and look at the economy then get back to me. Yeah, the Democrats are doing a bang up job.
Let's see, Democrats in power. That would Jimmy Carter and the Misery Index. Clinton and the Bad Economy that killed the tax cut he promised from 1993-1994. Obama and the 9.5% unemployment economy. Yup. That's a really good track record for the Democrats in power.
Comment by Henry — August 19, 2009 @ 4:04 pm
This shows what a more conservative congress is capable of rather than presidents. Bartlett says we need to hold republicans responsible..WE DID SHERLOCK-- they got voted out of office!!!
Comment by BUD — August 19, 2009 @ 4:29 pm
BUD,
Please look through the links I provided above. The economy does better under Democratic Congresses as well as Democratic Presidents. On every measure of the economy except inflation. Including national debt.
Comment by SteveA — August 19, 2009 @ 5:01 pm
BUD,
Please look through the links I provided above. The economy does better under Democratic Congresses as well as Democratic Presidents. On every measure of the economy except inflation. Including national debt.
Comment by SteveA — August 19, 2009 @ 5:01 pm
Ah SteveA, You and your "links." For every "link" you post supporting the liberal slant on things a counter link can be found to contradict it.
BUD,
Please look through the links I provided above. The economy does better under Democratic Congresses as well as Democratic Presidents. On every measure of the economy except inflation. Including national debt.
Comment by SteveA — August 19, 2009 @ 5:01 pm
http://motorcitytimes.com/mct/scary-graphs-republican-vs-democrat-economy/
Congress has far more influence over the economy than the president. Things were not perfect, but were pretty good until pelosi and the dems took control of congress several years ago. Remember 4.5% unemployment. Now, after 3 years of democrat control of congress we are pushing 10% with no end in sight. But what do you expect from a party that worships the likes of Barney Frank and Nacy Pelosi, both of whom are proven pathological liars. Here's a link for ya, may be a bit too painful for you libs to watch the whole thing though.......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxMInSfanqg
Spin all you want, there it is out of their own mouths. Go ahead SteveA, through some more of your "links" out to refute that!
Comment by Jim W. — August 19, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
StevA... national debt?? in light of what's happened the past 6 months--- in the immortal words of John McEnroe.."YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS!!!"
Comment by BUD — August 19, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
There you go again Steve A, thinking that facts matter. For some of these posters, facts are just obstacles to be overcome.
"It turns out nearly half of Americans believe the “death panel” fib."
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/poll-nearly-half-of-americans-believe-death-panel-falsehood/
"LUNTZ: That's half of it. And the other half is that he's actually attacking Medicare. And that is something that's really important for your audience, whether you're 65 or older, you've got parents who are 65 or older. Barack Obama -- from this language -- I've got the text -- it's almost like he's declaring war on Medicare because it's the only way for him to be able to pay for health care. It's an interesting gambit, Sean, and I don't think it's going to work."
http://mediamatters.org/research/200908190004
Comment by Sandi Saunders — August 19, 2009 @ 7:04 pm
Jim W, your "facts" remind me of the video from the police that showed the chase, showed the wreck, but left out the police beating that ensued. Your "sources" compare the train just before it left the tracks and the train after it was brought into the scrap yard and you actually feel that is a "fair" comparison? WOW.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — August 19, 2009 @ 7:07 pm
Dan.. I gotta ask... did you "fudge", condense and otherwise mutilate Bartlett's text or did he really say "Clinton abolished...welfare"? Come on now 'fess up!
Comment by BUD — August 19, 2009 @ 7:11 pm
Bud you can click on the link and read the entire piece. It's much more critical than the clip above would appear.
Comment by Kristen — August 19, 2009 @ 7:30 pm
A nice contrast between W and O...........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIHz5tevLAw
Comment by Jim W. — August 19, 2009 @ 7:30 pm
Jim W, your "facts"
Comment by Sandi Saunders — August 19, 2009 @ 7:07 pm
Sandi, those aren't my "facts." Those are the actual words of the revered liberal leaders coming back to haunt them, unless you beleive they are look alike imposters. The repubs are not blamelss in this I'll admit, but the dems played a major role in creating the financial crisis, and the big O said the people who caused the mess needed to "shut up and get out of way." Well now, as the church lady used to say, isn't that special?
Comment by Jim W. — August 19, 2009 @ 7:38 pm
Oh Sandi, one more thing, that train had left the station long before those assinine statements made by Frank, Pelosi, and Raines. I admit that you have made the effort in the past to critisize the dems when you percieve them to be wrong. I am a little dismayed this time to see you completely disregard their words as just a selective, out of context video blip. To me, it is overwhelming, specific evidence of the culpability of the liberal leaders in this current financial mess our country is in. But all I hear is it is 110% George Bush's fault.
Comment by Jim W. — August 19, 2009 @ 7:45 pm
No, not special; specious. That selective, blame the wrong folks piece of drivel is so telling and your use of it is as well. This financial debacle COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED if Phil Gramm had not railroaded the repeals that let the foxes guard the henhouse through a REPUBLICAN congress with a veto proof vote that started this long train to nightmare city and NOTHING you or anyone can cook up, cut and paste, and throw on youtube can change that. Dems played a role, not a majority role and that is simply and utterly the truth that denials cannot change.
Try this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2nZbo8SKbg and get back to me.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — August 19, 2009 @ 8:04 pm
Or try this article: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350,00.html
The top 25 to blame
Comment by Sandi Saunders — August 19, 2009 @ 8:09 pm
OK, I always call the left on their lie that Democrat Presidents are better on the economy. Again, for the 1000th time, Clinton was running the country off a cliff like Obama is doing, same health care, same socialist stuff, then the GOP took over Congress in 1995, stopped Clinton's spending in its tracks, and brought us skyrocketing prosperity in the late 1990s. Clinton attacked Microsoft for not donating to his campaign, which led the downturn of 2000. Then Bush was saddled with 9-11 and it's economic impact. He brought the economy back one more time, achieving a record stock market. But not even Bush could stop Democrats on the banking committee from taking the economy over the cliff. Democrat takeover of Congress in 2006 sealed our doom.
Even Steve A's own source contradicts his claims about Democrats presidents and Congresses. The economy has done the very best, rising nearly 10% when a GOP Congress is in place stopping leftwing spendthrifts like Clinton dead in their tracks.
Sandi, TIME had to look long and hard to avoid putting many Democrats on their list. BTW, TIME in their June issue declared the recession over. Talk about a leftwing mouthpiece being devoid of reality.
Comment by Suzie — August 19, 2009 @ 8:31 pm
Yeah, that Bartlett is one "leftwing mouthpiece being devoid of reality" all right. You call him out, with all your "facts" there, Suzie. Go, on call him a liar and tell us how he is manufacturing his points. You don't even have to scroll back up for the link: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-08-12/the-gops-misplaced-rage/full/ Happy to oblige
Comment by Sandi Saunders — August 19, 2009 @ 8:50 pm
All I know is Bush had the DOW past 14,000 and unemployment below 5%. I and a lot of other Americans would be very happy to have that kind of "disaster" right now.
Comment by Suzie — August 19, 2009 @ 9:17 pm
Clearly, you need to read the linked article one more time. It does not appear to be sinking in. Bush squandered the economy left him - and he did so with a Republican Congress for most of his two terms, leaving you with no excuse.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — August 19, 2009 @ 9:33 pm
9-11. War on terror. Not cheap. Clinton didn't have any of those things to deal with, or I should say he didn't deal with any of those things. He left it for the next guy.
Comment by Suzie — August 19, 2009 @ 10:16 pm
Not cheap at all. So maybe giving a $1.3 trillion tax cut to the wealthy wasn't such a great idea while trying to pay for an unnecessary war in Iraq, in addition to the necessary war in Afghanistan (that's still going on thanks to the lack of attention given it by Bush). You think?
Comment by Dan Radmacher — August 19, 2009 @ 10:51 pm
Jim W. and BUD,
I have already proven you both wrong more times than I can remember. You want more? Fine.
All of your attempts have been noted and dispensed with in previous threads. No proof has been provided to dispute that evidence. I'm not going to go through all of this once again. You want to get the facts? Then go back to the previous threads.
Your new "proof" is laughable. I know you would rather judge Bush on just his first 7 months or some other 7 months of your choosing instead of his entire time, or some magical period of conservative economic dominance, but that ain't the way it works folks. Same for Obama.
"For every "link" you post supporting the liberal slant on things a counter link can be found to contradict it."
Then where are they? Provide them. Can you? Because the links you do provide have done nothing of the sort.
1. The motorcitytimes link: First, how convenient that the "proof" doesn't go back before 2003...Now why would that be? See previous threads. Second, it is absurd to assume that an economy which collapsed in 2007 (which even the war criminal admits) is the fault of Democrats or Obama when Democrats didn't take over Congress until 2007 and Obama entered office 7 months ago. The collapse can be directly linked to deregulation. And I have done so. See previous threads.
Since when were we discussing gas prices? Are you sure you really want to use that graph? Seeing as how gas prices went way down with Obama getting to the White House? Or that gas prices were around a buck/gallon when Clinton was in office? That it took four years from 1998 for them to double to $2.00? Then another four years of Bush the oil prince to double again to $4.00? Fine. We'll do it your way.
The spike in gas prices was due to three factors: The availability of crude, refining capacity, and market speculation.
The price of crude can be directly linked to the Iraq disaster as it spiked soon after the invasion. Other factors include the rise of demand in China and India, the cutback of production in Venezuela, slowing of production in Nigeria and the Gulf of Mexico, and the weak dollar due to the Fed flooding the market with dollars during the Bush Administration and the Conservative Great Recession - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121150088368615927.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries . ["Liberal Media" Note - WSJ not a liberal source]
Refining capacity - A big reduction in refining capacity happened after Katrina even though the Bush Administration considered it more important than US citizens. However, oil companies manipulate capacity in order to expand profits - http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:q76P7ZDKtAEJ:wyden.senate.gov/issues/wyden_oil_report.pdf+bush+administration+cuts+in+refining+capacity&hl=en&gl=us [Oil industry documents obtained during a Senate investigation] and http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn12961.htm [Article describing documents] They do this to produce shortages and increase prices for more profits. As an oil prince, Bush knows this, yet dishonestly called for "more refining capacity" when prices started to rise under his watch. Not to mention the ridiculous "Drill, baby, drill" Republican baying emanating from the RNC...
The biggest factor, by far, has been the market. Due to the Conservative Great Recession, investors have been buying commodities, such as oil, instead of keeping their money in the dollar. http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/05/quantifying-commodities-speculation.html ["Liberal Media" Note - Links to conservatives and criticizes Krugman. Not a liberal source] and http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2009-06-11-gas-prices-rise-with-oil-prices_N.htm ["Liberal Media" Note - USA Today is the AOL of newspapers - not a liberal source. Especially with all of the pictures and graphs and bright colors to prevent distraction]
"...hedge-fund manager Masters also said that big institutional investors were sucking the air out of the fragile economic recovery, in part because their Wall Street partners were exempt from federal limits on how much they could bet on commodity prices.
"What they don't realize is because we don't have position limits, the money they put in is driving up the price" for oil and other commodities, he said.
Contracts for future deliveries of oil and other commodities are traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange, and the futures market for oil has position limits that restrict how much of the market big speculators can control.
However, big Wall Street banks are exempt from these restrictions, and there also are no such limits in derivatives markets. These vast unregulated markets involve private contracts between swaps dealers, usually big Wall Street banks, and large investors. These dark markets, also called over-the-counter markets, are thought to be 10 times larger than the futures market, and they have no position limits and no regulation."
- http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/68552.html ["Liberal Media" Note - Excellent reporting from this news service and they were among the very few who actually did their job concerning the Iraq WMD question. Their reporting was proven accurate. For a reasonable person that means great reporting. For a conservative, it probably doesn't...]
Continued...
Comment by SteveA — August 19, 2009 @ 11:56 pm
Continued...
Why and when were these markets deregulated? I'm glad you asked -
"In June 2000, Senator Gramm co-sponsored the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, a measure aimed at deregulating certain kinds of futures trading, but not energy futures. That bill never made it to the floor, and thus quietly died. Six months later, on December 15, Gramm curiously turned up as co-sponsor of a bill with the same name, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which did deregulate energy futures and which, without undergoing the usual committee hearings and preliminary votes, was immediately attached as a rider to an 11,000-page appropriations bill. (Republicans have a record of sneaking in legislation, even violating the rules of Congress to do so) It passed and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton six days later. Few lawmakers had likely perused the rider carefully, if they even knew it was there."
Gramm (he of Gramm-Leach-Bliley fame and McCain's economic adviser in the 2008 election) did it on behalf of the criminals at Enron, to whom his wife was appointed a seat on the board of directors right after exempting the company's energy-swap operation from government oversight in her position as the chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a position she left a few days after she got the ball rolling on the exemption.
- http://www.villagevoice.com/content/printVersion/168070 ["Liberal Media" Note - Would probabaly be thought of as liberal by conservatives. If conservatives are in doubt of the info provided, check it and follow their links]
All seems to come back to conservative deregulation and criminality in the end, doesn't it?
The Stock Market, Job Losses, and National Debt has already been dealt with. Again. And again. You need to look at long term records and records that include information from before 2003. All in the proof I provided in previous threads.
Democrats are better. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.
2. The youtube link: This nonsense has already been refuted. Over and over again. In mainstream media and by independent observers. Seriously - step away from the Fox and hate radio. The economic situation was not caused by Fannie/Freddie. That is a pathetic racist Republican talking point that seeks to blame "lazy, irresponsible" minorities. As usual. If you would do a little research before posting your drivel, you might realize that. See previous threads.
"Congress has far more influence over the economy than the president." - Again, this was addressed. See previous threads.
The debt has been dealt with as well. See previous threads.
The second video is irrelevant to the discussion.
And Suzie, you need to provide some proof to back up your ideological claims.
pwned!
Comment by SteveA — August 19, 2009 @ 11:57 pm
Try this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2nZbo8SKbg and get back to me.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — August 19, 2009 @ 8:04 pm
First of all I like Dorgan and everything he said I agree with. It is too bad his dem colleagues didn't share his concern several years later. Didn't see any reference to Phil Gram there. I also liked the part where Dorgan warned against the 700 billion dollar stimulus plan. Perhaps Bush and Obama should have heeded Dorgan's words. As far as this video taking the majority of the blame from the dems...well, I'm getting back to you on that now, it doesn't, not by a long shot.
Comment by Jim W. — August 20, 2009 @ 1:20 am
Oh one other thing about the Dorgan video, how can you expect to show a video of one democrat who has his head screwed on straight (I admit, you do find one occassionally) and expect that to erase the loon fringe of Frank, Pelosi, Reid, Gorelick, Raines and the others singing the praises of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while calling the repubs racist for trying to have these entities regulated?
Comment by Jim W. — August 20, 2009 @ 1:28 am
"Clinton attacked Microsoft for not donating to his campaign, which led the downturn of 2000."
LOL
Comment by SteveA — August 20, 2009 @ 2:09 am
BTW, TIME in their June issue declared the recession over. Talk about a leftwing mouthpiece being devoid of reality.
Comment by Suzie — August 19, 2009 @ 8:31 pm
Is there a publication that doesn't involve thought bubbles coming out of people's heads that you don't dismiss as a "liberal mouthpiece"?
You're going to have to do better than that.
He left it for the next guy.
Comment by Suzie — August 19, 2009 @ 10:16 pm
Bush literally did not finish one thing he started. He left it ALL to Obama..and admitted as much. Pathetic. The defense of him...even more so.
Comment by Kristen — August 20, 2009 @ 7:17 am
When 5% of the people pay 60% of the federal income tax, it's hard for me to listen to complaints about the inequity of tax cuts for the rich.
Bush's tax cuts led to record DOW and low unemployment. His war in Iraq led to a self-determining Democracy and no attacks.
Look where we are with Obama. $1 trillion added to the deficit in 6 months, unemployment approaching 10%, dropping GDP at a time when other countries are turning around, stuck in the Afghan quagmire and world tensions escalating. Yeah, Bush is looking pretty good about now.
Comment by Suzie — August 20, 2009 @ 7:37 am
TIME/CNN is to be complimented on their amazing feat of concocting a list of "Top 25 Villains in the Banking Crisis" without including even one Democrat from the Senate or House banking committees. That must have taken extraordinary imagination. Good work guys. Now, tell us more about the dramatic turnaround you said our economy has had since June. LOL.
Comment by Suzie — August 20, 2009 @ 7:57 am
You know, it is tiresome the way you all keep asking the same questions, ignoring any proof offered and clinging to the false information you have been fed. As for this beauty "and expect that to erase the loon fringe of Frank, Pelosi, Reid, Gorelick, Raines and the others singing the praises of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while calling the repubs racist for trying to have these entities regulated?", my first response is that I have long ago and continually agreed that the majority (of the minority) of the Dems in Congress did not pursue the job they were elected to do and gave to much rein to what they knew or should have known instinctively while feeding at the same trough as the Reps. That does not excuse their behavior one iota and I seriously wish that they had made the noise and joined Mr. Dorgan at that time and other times as well. In other words, I take the blame due my side and apologize for it. I do not wallow in the fact that the Congress was majority Republican and that the pleas would have fallen on deaf "we're making money" ears, because for many of them and many of you THAT is ALL that mattered, then and now. Second, (who is Gorelick?) you do not want us to fault the Republican minority leaders for not stepping up and being part of a solution now, but you ask that I place more blame on the Dems who were the minority then? Not going to happen, fair is fair. Speaking of fair, you seriously need to let go of that pitiful idea that the "problems" your side screamed about at Fannie and Freddie had any bearing whatsoever on the actual financial crisis or any attempt to fix, correct or expose the very real, very deep and very disastrous financial shenanigans that ruined this economy. The truth is that the screaming was about "proving" once again how badly government run programs and the people who run them were. To scream, "just look what Fannie and Freddie are doing" while literally winking at the Wall Street Ravagers is enough to turn the stomach of any honest person AND THAT IS JUST WHAT IT DID. Your side learned NOTHING from the S&L Crisis, NOTHING from the Great Depression and NOTHING apparently from this latest Depression either, except of course how to blame anybody but yourself. Sell those lies, distortions and delusions where they belong, on Faux-News.com.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — August 20, 2009 @ 8:26 am
Well Suzie, how about that "without including even one Democrat from the Senate or House banking committees"? I looked at the archives and guess what:
95-98 D'Amato REPUBLICAN
99-01 Gramm REPUBLICAN
01-02 Sarbanes DEMOCRAT
03-06 Shelby REPUBLICAN
07- Dodd
Comment by Sandi Saunders — August 20, 2009 @ 9:01 am
The inequity at the top is not so pronounced when you factor that while the top 5% do pay about 60% of Federal income taxes, they also earn just under 40% of the total AGI earned in the country. The top 25% pays almost 87% of the total taxes, while earning about 69% of the AGI. In contrast, the bottom 50% of taxpayers earn just a tad over 12% of the total AGI, while paying about 3% of the Federal income taxes. If everyone paid the same rate for taxes across the board, a la a flat tax, sure, the inequities in terms of tax burden as a proportion of income would be leveled, but much of the burden would be placed on people who already do not earn a whole heck of a lot. Plus, it would also reduce the total revenue for the Feds substantially. Perhaps that's not a bad thing to that end to force the Feds to be small, but I don't think shifting the tax burden from the top 50% to more of the bottom 50% is a good way to accomplish that. As someone who sits squarely in the top 25% of taxpayers, I do not mind paying a higher tax rate and a higer amount in taxes than someone earning half as much as I do. There was once a time when I earned less than 1/6th what I do today, and had it not been for low taxes, several state and federal grant and loan programs, and other benefits I received at the time to earn an education and pay for it, I would not be in the position I am today to be earning what I do and paying back what I do in taxes. Maybe I would have still gotten here without the assistance, that's certainly possible. Likely, I would not have been able to do it as quickly, or more likely, I would be in a different field entirely and done more on-the-job training than formal education. Regardless, I know that there is someone who today sits in the same position I was in over a decade ago, and if my higher taxes can help them the way I was helped, then that seems pretty fair to me.
Comment by Other John — August 20, 2009 @ 9:02 am
Sorry, Dodd is a DEMOCRAT
And the House:
105th Congress - Leach REPUBLICAN
106th Congress - Leach REPUBLICAN
107th Congress - Oxley REPUBLICAN
108th Congress - Oxley REPUBLICAN
109th Congress - Frank DEMOCRAT
Yeah, I can see the REAL dilemma TIME had on their hands...
Comment by Sandi Saunders — August 20, 2009 @ 9:03 am
"Speaking of fair, you seriously need to let go of that pitiful idea that the "problems" your side screamed about at Fannie and Freddie had any bearing whatsoever on the actual financial crisis or any attempt to fix, correct or expose the very real, very deep and very disastrous financial shenanigans that ruined this economy."
This one brings to mind the quote from the 'eloquent' Barney Frank from just a few days ago. To paraphrase, which planet is this on?
Talk about deflection and projection. Liberal lending policies implemented at the demand of Democrats led to the over-extended, overly inflated housing market. But most, on both sides of the aisle ignored it until the crash of the housing market. Then, even thought the shoddy foundation had been crumbling since it was built in the 70's, suddenly Bush had caused an economic crisis. At first the liberals were excited to blame Republicans for the lack of regulatory oversight in banking and housing. After all, Republicans are usually the ones arguing for less government oversight and involvement. But how quickly that song changed when the Dems realized that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two of their own long-time golden cows, were at the root of the problem. Then, when even more embarrassingly, they realized that the Republicans had been arguing, on the record, that there were going to be huge problems with institutions like Fannie and Freddie if regulations were not put in place only to have Frank and his cohorts laugh it off and refuse to hear it, lack of regulation wasn't the problem.
Now it has been spun into the denial "that the "problems" . . . at Fannie and Freddie had any bearing whatsoever on the actual financial crisis."
What a wonderful example of claiming to accept partial responsibilty in one line only to then spend the next twenty lines explaining why it's someone else's fault. To wit, "Your side learned NOTHING from the S&L Crisis, NOTHING from the Great Depression and NOTHING apparently from this latest Depression either, except of course how to blame anybody but yourself."
The rhetoric is truly outstanding when you can engage in the very behavior you criticize while simultaneously lambasting someone else for the same behavior. But hey, as long we are ignoring facts and re-writing history, maybe you could change my birthday. I'd like to be younger.
Comment by C Ramsey — August 20, 2009 @ 9:09 am
This article is extremely short on specifics about what Clinton did to make the economy better and what Bush did to make it worse.
Using the logic employed in the article, one could make the case that Clinton must have handed off a very weak economy to Bush and that Bush is not to blame for it. The economy, by the time Clinton left office, was a house of cards anyway.
Basic Translation: Clinton was president during decent economic times, Bush during worse economic times. But neither apparently had anything to do with causing them (lack of specifics). What would Gore have done differently? How did Bush get reelected in 2004 if he was so terrible?
Sheesh!
Comment by Bob H — August 20, 2009 @ 9:42 am
You want to talk embarrassing? Let's do that. Your whole incredible diatribe is as wrong and lacking in facts as is your condemnation of mine. Fannie and Freddie were NOT the "root of the problem", if anything they were the late bloomers who came into the game as it was crashing. Your side got mad and started screaming about them because many of you thought they had an advantage over the tycoons you had enabled and the leaders were Dems (and thus had to be stopped), period! The S&L Crisis proved how much you love and support regulation and oversight. And the "Liberal lending policies" you decry have been proven to have NOT caused the run away train of greed, illusions and flat out lies the financial system used to hoodwink the entire economy. It was a house built on sand, but that sand was piled with the greased hands from BOTH sides of the aisle and with legislation (deregulation) crafted from the free market, business and financial market loving Republicans and NO INSULT you offer can change that fact. You get points for having the gall to try, but your boat is full of holes.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — August 20, 2009 @ 9:49 am
Bob H, there is much lost in your translation. You are persistent but the premise was not how great Clinton was and therefore your straw will be blown away. I have already surmised that you are smarter than this economist, so please do continue the translation and prove his point.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — August 20, 2009 @ 10:29 am
everyone knows that the financial problems started a long time ago with many politicians involved, dems, repubs..all guilty of it. no one who gets to that point of the political ladder is truthful anymore, they are no longer sincere or there to help you...it is only about power. it is why we keep term limits. after awhile we all see buyers remorse in almost every single candidate. they are either cheating on their wives, taxes, mafia-connected, its always something with politicians. i trust absolutely none of them. in any case, all politicians are guilty of where we are today...think before you vote. investigate before you vote. dont follow blindly because of the way they look or what you hear. do your own fact finding and dont listen to the media as they are lousy these days. real journalism seems to be dead, either that or paid off.
Comment by pammala — August 20, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
"In short, there is no comparison" - Wild Dan
You are absolutely right- there is not comparison because it's apples and oranges buddy. The Clinton years led to a massive equity bubble that destabilized the economy to the point that we are still suffering from today. Clinton was also the impetus of deregulation which led to lax oversight of the financial industry which came home to roost recently.
Bush was wrong to increase entitlements with his drug program, but it's funny when we see liberals fault him for this act of compassion and government expansion. What happened to the left's compassion?
Clinton rode the Internet bubble and his female assistants, while Bush led us through our toughest times in the face of terrorism and the bursting of the tech bubble. Now, how about that leadership from Barack Hussein Obama? Anyone loving the 10% unemployment "change" they voted for? How about that wonderful non-consensus, uni-partisan, socialist, invasion-of-privacy healthcare bill?
Comment by Jim — August 20, 2009 @ 11:17 pm
Jim,
"it's funny when we see liberals fault him for this act of compassion and government expansion. What happened to the left's compassion?"
The Medicare Prescription bill was criticized because Bush lied to Congress about the cost of it, and it left a donut hole that seniors had to get through in order to get their full benefits. There's nothing wrong with the left's compassion. Do you have any? Or is everything about Jim?
You just can't accept facts, can you?
Comment by SteveA — August 20, 2009 @ 11:53 pm
Jim,
There's also the fact that the Medicare bill was never about helping people or responsible use of tax money. There was a provision in the legislation that deliberately prohibited the government from negotiating lower prices. But corporate welfare and providing for those that don't need it is everyday behavior for conservatives, so nobody should be surprised when they throw away money.
That's probably another reason why Democrats are better on the economy, specifically the national debt.
Comment by SteveA — August 21, 2009 @ 12:11 am
Henry, Henry, Henry, "No wonder we are in such trouble. The Democrats are too busy blaming Bush to work on the problem. 9.5% unemployment. Change we just have accept."
No wonder we are in such trouble. Bush and his minions were too busy bragging on the success of the housing market and the DOW to work on the problem.
Suzie, "9-11. War on terror. Not cheap. Clinton didn't have any of those things to deal with."
Comment by Suzie — August 19, 2009 @ 10:16 pm
"The war IS what got us out of the Depression."
Comment by Suzie — August 15, 2009 @ 11:47 am
Folks, those comments sound contradictory to me. Why would anyone claim that war expenses would make one president's job harder and another's easier.
Jim, "the bursting of the tech bubble" was just one more manifestation of the greed and ignorance of free trade which was and still is supported by Bush and McCain and apparently with less exuberance is supported by Obama.
Comment by allen bunch — August 21, 2009 @ 5:02 am
allen bunch,
"Folks, those comments sound contradictory to me. Why would anyone claim that war expenses would make one president's job harder and another's easier. "
Because facts become irrelevant when conservatives need to defend their ideology.
Good point, allen. Proves that Democrats, regardless of the circumstances, are better for the economy than Republicans. Gosh, you know, I think I've heard that somewhere...
I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for an admission of error though.
Comment by SteveA — August 21, 2009 @ 7:56 am
SteveA..you made a statement...Bush lied to congress about the cost of the medicare prscription drug plan... how does something like that occur?
The senate has their version of a plan..the house theirs..they reconcile and you woild have us believe they have no idea of what a plan costs? And then the executive branch, NOT THE CBO, scores their legislative efforts?
Now if you wanted to say Congress and the BUSH admin. lied to the American people..that might be plausible.
Comment by BUD — August 21, 2009 @ 8:01 am
Bud,
Technically it is not a lie unless they knew for a fact that it was going to cost more. It's probably more of a bad speculation.
A lie is when you say you did not have sex with that womam when you really did have sex with that woman.
Allen
Bush isn't President anymore. It's some guy named Obama now.
Comment by Henry — August 21, 2009 @ 8:16 am
Bud,
Here's a good recap of how something like that occurred, and it definitely fits Henry's definition of a lie: The Bush administration intentionally deceived Congress about the estimated cost of the bill. Thirteen conservative House members had vowed to vote against any bill costing more than $400 billion. Richard S. Foster, the top actuary at the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, privately estimated in June 2003 – five months before the final vote – that the bill would actually cost $550 billion. He was contacted by Democratic staffers seeking estimates on the cost of the Bush proposal. By law, he was obligated to provide them the information. Thomas Scully, the chief Medicare administrator, is reported to have threatened to fire Foster if he provided the information. Foster later commented that “there was a pattern of withholding information for what I perceived to be political purposes.” The much higher estimate of the cost of the Medicare bill was apparently known by top officials at the White House.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — August 21, 2009 @ 8:24 am
"Allen
Bush isn't President anymore. It's some guy named Obama now."
Comment by Henry — August 21, 2009 @ 8:16 am
What is your point? You will need to be more explicit for those of us as slow as I. Apparently I said something about Bush that you think I should not have said. Please tell me what it is.
Comment by allen bunch — August 21, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
BTW Henry, how long was it into the Bush/Cheney debacle that your side stopped bashing and blaming Clinton and "what they inherited"? Well, that is about how long it will be before we do the same IMO.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — August 21, 2009 @ 12:46 pm
"is **reported** to have "
"The much higher estimate of the cost of the Medicare bill was **apparently** known by top officials at the White House. "
It sounds like mere speculation to me. Funny how they are never able to quantify these beliefs.
Comment by Henry — August 21, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
"BTW Henry, how long was it into the Bush/Cheney debacle that your side stopped bashing and blaming Clinton and "what they inherited"? "
Irrelevant. Our side doesn't have newspapers all over the country.
If you want to bash Bush, have at it. But this is a blatant partisan attack. I expect this type of thing from Rush Limbaugh, not the local newspaper.
Comment by Henry — August 21, 2009 @ 1:07 pm
Well you are in luck, because the "local newspaper" has done no such thing. The editorial page is hardly "the local newspaper" and the elevation in prominence might make Dan smile, but he knows that too.
I will bash Bush whenever there is a relevant reason to do so, just as you still bash Clinton, Carter and any other Dem you can wrangle into a post. That is what we do. My point was to ask you to stop whining about it unless you have evidence to prove you and your side did not do it (hypocrisy?) to Clinton and I got my answer. Rush Limbaugh is a respected journalist with talent on loan from god and don't you pretend otherwise. You decide your relevance and I'll decide mine.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — August 21, 2009 @ 1:25 pm