when is the US going to issue its own austerity plan?

[senseamp]

So...who's more at fault here...Bush for his tax cuts and 2 wars...or Clinton who repealed the Glass-Steagall Act which allowed mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations to exist and ultimately cause a US and global financial crisis?

Republican Congress for all of the above.

 

[sandorski]

So...who's more at fault here...Bush for his tax cuts and 2 wars...or Clinton who repealed the Glass-Steagall Act which allowed mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations to exist and ultimately cause a US and global financial crisis?

Bush. Even Glass Steagull repeal wasn't the only thing on the road to the Financial Crisis.

 

[sandorski]

Even if Clinton had been allowed to stay in office another 4/8/n years, the tech, housing, and credit bubbles still would have burst. The "surplus" was an illusion and not at all sustainable. Bush sped up the path to ruin, but we were already on that path.

The Surplus became an Illusion the minute Bush began cutting Taxes.

 

[juiio]

The Surplus became an Illusion the minute Bush began cutting Taxes.

The surplus was an illusion because the pre-bubble-bursting economy was an illusion. Nothing that Clinton, had he been given more time in office, could have done would have prevented the housing, credit, and tech bubbles from bursting.

 

[sandorski]

The surplus was an illusion because the pre-bubble-bursting economy was an illusion. Nothing that Clinton, had he been given more time in office, could have done would have prevented the housing, credit, and tech bubbles from bursting.

No, it wasn't. As far as Bubbles go, it was fairly minor.

 

[juiio]

No, it wasn't. As far as Bubbles go, it was fairly minor.

There was nothing minor about it. That economy was built on a lie.

Also, claiming that Clinton's policies would have paid off trillion+ is rather silly when the debt hasn't gone down year-over-year since 1957. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

 

[sandorski]

There was nothing minor about it. That economy was built on a lie.

Also, claiming that Clinton's policies would have paid off trillion+ is rather silly when the debt hasn't gone down year-over-year since 1957. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

A lie? Really. Speculation was what it was.

What has Historically occurred is Moot. Simply because going against the Historical Norm will be necessary to fix the situation. Clinton got the US to the point where it could have gone against that Norm, but Bush.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Bush. Even Glass Steagull repeal wasn't the only thing on the road to the Financial Crisis.

It was a major factor...but of course you would say Bush....and why am I not surprised? I was giving you the benefit of the doubt...but you're obviously a Dem apologist and partisan hack to the bone. Both parties had a hand in what happened...but hell or high water...you'd never admit that Dem shit stinks too. Fail.

 

[nick1985]

It was a major factor...but of course you would say Bush....and why am I not surprised? I was giving you the benefit of the doubt...but you're obviously a Dem apologist and partisan hack to the bone. Both parties had a hand in what happened...but hell or high water...you'd never admit that Dem shit stinks too. Fail.

lol

 

[Merithynos]

Obama is spending ~$3.5 trillion this year. What I meant to say is he is spending more in 1 year than the combined debt of all the Presidents from Reagan and before. Percentages mean nothing. AMOUNT does. Obama is almost adding as much to the national debt in 1 year as Reagan did in 8. I'm willing to bet the amount of $$$ brought in by Reagan during that time also increased massively without tax increases. Think thats going to happen under Obama?

But its OK because Obama will probably only make the debt go to 20 trillion before he leaves which is only ~200% increase. I guess in a way he is actually cutting the debt then.

"During the Reagan years, federal employment grew by more than 60,000...The gap between the amount of money the federal government took in and the amount it spent nearly tripled. The national debt soared from $700 billion to $3 trillion, and the U.S. transformed from the world's largest international creditor to its largest debtor. After 1981, Reagan raised taxes nearly every year: 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1986. The 1983 payroll tax hike even helped fund Medicare and Social Security—or, in terms today's Tea Partiers might recognize, "government-run health care" and "socialism."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/237737/page/4

 

[Fear No Evil]

"During the Reagan years, federal employment grew by more than 60,000...The gap between the amount of money the federal government took in and the amount it spent nearly tripled. The national debt soared from $700 billion to $3 trillion, and the U.S. transformed from the world's largest international creditor to its largest debtor. After 1981, Reagan raised taxes nearly every year: 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1986. The 1983 payroll tax hike even helped fund Medicare and Social Security—or, in terms today's Tea Partiers might recognize, "government-run health care" and "socialism."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/237737/page/4

And now Obama is spending more than 3.5 trillion a YEAR.. and will add 3 trillion to the debt in 2 years. The Federal government is about the only one hiring right now. If you are suggesting what Reagan did was wrong, then surely you can't say what Obama is doing is good? Unless we are just going to go back to the old 'he inherited it' line? I guess Bush kind of inherited 9/11 from Clinton then as well.

 

[Mursilis]

Reagan quadrupled the national debt during his term in office, something I doubt Obama will even begin to equal...

Because, you know, Congress has no role in the budgetary process whatsoever, so they're not to blame at all!

As usual, Jhhnn can't be anything other than a partisan hack. One of these days, you'll (hopefully) figure out both parties are playing you.

 

[Shilohen]

Unless we are just going to go back to the old 'he inherited it' line? I guess Bush kind of inherited 9/11 from Clinton then as well.

Very dangerous box, I would not open that worm can, nothing good can come from it.

Public spending and deficit can help, as long as it's not everlasting and the debt gets paid back with time. That's the basis of Keynesian economics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics. The main problem is that governments rarely pay back their debt. However, Obama has yet to lead during a prosperity period, so I'd say that it's too early to judge him how he's handling those issues. That being said, the worst of the crisis is most likely behind, notwithstanding EU issues that could blow the rest of the world as well, so the debt/GDP ratio increase should lower in the next years. If it doesn't then I'll be willing to blame Obama, but I don't think we're there yet.

 

[Siddhartha]

this article is about greece but i feel the same could apply to state workers here in the US.
i bolded some key points, regarding pay and pension.

First take a 25% reduction in your pay and slash your pension and then get back to us on how a great idea it is.

 

[sandorski]

It was a major factor...but of course you would say Bush....and why am I not surprised? I was giving you the benefit of the doubt...but you're obviously a Dem apologist and partisan hack to the bone. Both parties had a hand in what happened...but hell or high water...you'd never admit that Dem shit stinks too. Fail.

If you ask me who killed Millions of Jews during WW2, I'm going to answer "Hitler" every time. No matter how many times you ask it.

If you don't want to hear "Bush" as an answer, quit asking questions whose answer is "Bush".

 

[Jhhnn]

Because, you know, Congress has no role in the budgetary process whatsoever, so they're not to blame at all!

As usual, Jhhnn can't be anything other than a partisan hack. One of these days, you'll (hopefully) figure out both parties are playing you.

Heh. The executive branch proposes the budget. Congress actually cut Reagan's budget proposals on more than one occasion. Republicans also controlled the senate from 1981 to 1987, not to mention that budget proposals merely estimate revenues and expenditures for the year to follow. When you paint too rosy a picture, as the Reaganites usually did, spending is automatic, up to the debt ceiling... it's called "flexible budget items"

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/56More.htm

 

[Mursilis]

Heh. The executive branch proposes the budget. Congress actually cut Reagan's budget proposals on more than one occasion. Republicans also controlled the senate from 1981 to 1987, not to mention that budget proposals merely estimate revenues and expenditures for the year to follow. When you paint too rosy a picture, as the Reaganites usually did, spending is automatic, up to the debt ceiling... it's called "flexible budget items"

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/56More.htm

And then what happens, when the debt ceiling is reached? Has Congress (when controlled by either party) ever actually drawn a line in the sand and refused to raise the debt ceiling, or tied an increase in with austerity measures? Of course not, because both parties love to spend money, and neither are all that interested in balanced budgets. Tip O'Neill ran his yap against Reagan during the 80's, but he never really stood up against him either; as long as he was allowed to keep the pork flowing domestically, he went along with Reagan's defense build-up during the 80's. The only difference between Dems and Repubs is on whom they waste money. Clinton and the GOP Congress just got lucky to stumble upon a short-lived speculative bubble. Wake up.

 

[irishScott]

If you ask me who killed Millions of Jews during WW2, I'm going to answer "Hitler" every time. No matter how many times you ask it.

If you don't want to hear "Bush" as an answer, quit asking questions whose answer is "Bush".

Godwin's Law.

/thread

 

[sandorski]

Godwin's Law.

/thread

No, it's not.

 

[jpeyton]

As long as the Dems are in control, the only austerity plan is going to be for the private sector.

Try not to pay attention to the facts.

Link

Starting with Nixon's second term, the debt/GDP ratio has been increased by every Republican president.

GWB's increase in his second term alone was the highest on record during that period; a whopping 20%; leaving Obama with a 83.4% debt/GDP ratio to start out with (also the highest on record since the depression after WWII).

Except Obama is making those deficits look like responsible spending.

Nope. Bush's deficit was just as high, but simply hidden (Bush didn't account for the cost of the wars in the budget, didn't acknowledge full Medicare reimbursements, etc.).

Link

Percentages mean nothing. AMOUNT does.

Did you make it past 100-level econ? Amount doesn't mean anything. The amount of profit Nintendo made in the Q1 2009 is larger than the US federal budget in 1900. Does that mean Nintendo can run the entire US with their profit? Nope. Does that mean you can directly compare Obama's 2009 budget dollar-for-dollar with Reagan's 1981 budget? Nope. I would literally pee my pants in embarrassment if I knew as little about economics as you did.

Percentage matters.

 

[Jhhnn]

Thank you, jpeyton.

 

[heyheybooboo]

There was nothing minor about it. That economy was built on a lie.

Also, claiming that Clinton's policies would have paid off trillion+ is rather silly when the debt hasn't gone down year-over-year since 1957. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

Obtuse, much?

George Bush was handed a once-in-a-generation opportunity, and he blew it. Tell us how Bush and the GOP paid for their tax cuts, wars, missile defense, et. al ...

While you are at it you can explain how cutting revenues and raising expenses (in your bizzaro world) maintains a Unified Budget that was in surplus for four fiscal years in the late 1990s?

Any questions?

The annual Federal accumulation of debt nearly dropped to zero (I think it was $18 billion) because the Clinton Treasury Department invested the surplus in 'refinancing' the high-interest bonds from Raygun/Bush41 into lower-interest, shorter-term paper (in order to save tens of billions of dollars).

Boosh was a huge beneficiary of this action because of reduced annual interest payments on the national debt.

There is nothing more offensive than Bush Apologists and Revisionists. Let me know if more facts are necessary to shut you up.




--

 

[Budarow]

Our "own austerity plan" will begin in Jan 2011.

That's when the repubs will garner enough seats in both houses to block any plans the dems have of keeping the recession welfare system going (i.e., stimulus measures such as unemployment benefits, cash for clunkers, cash for caulkers, etc.).

The unemployed "down and outs" will really be in deep shat (hopefully, I won't become 1 of them).

 

[werepossum]

Obtuse, much?

George Bush was handed a once-in-a-generation opportunity, and he blew it. Tell us how Bush and the GOP paid for their tax cuts, wars, missile defense, et. al ...

While you are at it you can explain how cutting revenues and raising expenses (in your bizzaro world) maintains a Unified Budget that was in surplus for four fiscal years in the late 1990s?

Any questions?

The annual Federal accumulation of debt nearly dropped to zero (I think it was $18 billion) because the Clinton Treasury Department invested the surplus in 'refinancing' the high-interest bonds from Raygun/Bush41 into lower-interest, shorter-term paper (in order to save tens of billions of dollars).

Boosh was a huge beneficiary of this action because of reduced annual interest payments on the national debt.

There is nothing more offensive than Bush Apologists and Revisionists. Let me know if more facts are necessary to shut you up.

--

Yeah, it was all Clinton, never mind that his budgets (which the Democrats refused to introduce, and refused to vote for when Republicans introduced them) projected deficits forever. Never mind that the Republican Congress wrote and passed the spending bills, or that Clinton only vetoed them when he thought the Republicans "cuts" (in rate of growth only) were too draconian. It was all Clinton, balancing the budget whilst supporting the world on his penis.

Dumbass. Congress spends money, not the President. Congress makes the spending bills, not the President. The only financial power a President has is to lead his party if it has Congress, and to veto a spending bill if he thinks it is too high or too low. Even Reagan, the only president in my time to exercise any control over a Congress of the opposing party, didn't get the spending cuts he was supposedly promised by the Democrats.

The same Republican Congress that is responsible for the huge deficits under Bush is responsible for the lion's share of the cuts in deficits under Clinton. Anyone with an ounce of honesty admits this. Clinton did a good thing in going to short term bonds, but then the government only preferred them because the horrendous inflation during the Carter years had so driven up interest rates that it made sense to hedge.

 

[Budarow]

You know, ~2 years ago, I'd join in on the repubs/dems did this, did that conversation, but now I'm just watching while everything boils down to zip and trying like heII not to get sucked down by the swirling toilet bowl.