Rantings and tirades of a frustrated economist.
Showing to my liberal acquaintences......30 secs pass......"Well, at least Obama is doing something to get us out of the recession Bush caused."Nope, still did not make it through.Will try again in a few months.
The truth being on your side (your referring to the makers of the graph) why only bother with 7 years of Bush's rule? Stick in all 8 for Christ's sakes.
I have a foolish question.Did you explain to them or do they realize that Obama is implementing the PRECISE SAME FISCAL POLICY OF BUSH, BAR CUTTING TAXES?Do they understand just how much more debt we've incurred under Obama? Do they comprehend the concept of a trillion dollars?Or am I really just asking questions that are over their heads?And furthermore, do they fault the American people who borrowed more than they could pay back for the recession? Or was it Bush?And if it was Bush, what precisely did he do to trigger the recession? What precise action did he take that caused this recession?Seriously, ask them and have them answer those questions. I'm done with this intellectual dishonesty and sheer ignorance and stupidity when it comes to economics, heck, just reality.
I don't know why they cut out that first year. It's nothing compared to Obama's deficits, that's for sure.
I agree the 1st year is nothing, which is why it is mind boggling that they didn't include it. No reason to post this if you don't want.
Cappy:Been there, done that, got the blank stares.Seriously, these people do not care.Some will acknowledge that 0 is running a ridiculous deficit, but it is necessary to fix what Bush left behind.And, when you ask them exactly why Bush caused the recession, their answer falls into the following categories:1. gave money to his oil buddies2. started a war3. wanted to enslave the US4. (and I love this particular one) it was his policies. (no idea what policy(ies) it might have actually been, but somehow, it was his fault.)As far as I can tell they just spent too much time in the last 8 years hating Bush to let it go. It is not that you are asking questions over their heads, it is that they are afraid that they may have actually jumped from the frying pan to the fire.It is going to take the bill for 0's policies to come home and hit them in the wallet before they start to look at, and understand what you are showing them.
Question #1 - When does the s*** hit the fan and our economy collapses under the weight of unrecoverable debt? When do these deficit chickens come home to roost (in terms of Obama's buddy)?Question #2 - What happens when the economy collapses? What kind of scenarios could play out based on history? Does the Federal government collapse with the economy? Does mass anarchy occur? Does a military takeover happen like in banana republics?Question #3 - How do I best prepare for when the world as we know it collapses?
Maybe the first year didn't have deficits? I think at that time the Clinton budget (the ones that Republicans forced to be balanced back before they had control of 2 branches of government and decided "to hell with the pretense of caring about limited governance) was still pretty fresh, so there was a chance it actually balanced. If there was no deficit that year, then there would be no point to putting it on a deficit comparison chart since it would be an empty data point.
Bush's deficits resulted from:1. A recession which began at the end of Clinton's second term due to a collapsing asset bubble.2. Rebuilding the military which Clinton decimated every year for eight consecutive years.3. Dealing with the aftermath of 9/11 and the War on Terrorism.4. Clinton spending programs which were passed on to the next administration.5. Ever-growing entitlement programs which no President or Congress has the power or political will to end.6. Paying for the Katrina recovery and reconstruction.Obama did not "inherit" a recession. The cause of this crisis was two decades of increasing government intervention in the housing market which created a massive commodity bubble. Obama and the Demon Rat Congress was as much a part of that intervention as Bush and Clinton. In fact, after Democrats took office they INCREASED these programs. You're witnessing Bubble II right now with rising sales and prices. The majority of these sales are highly leveraged or speculative. Interest rates are artificially low due to loose monetary policy and Fed purchases of mortgage backed securities. Sound familiar?Obama's response to the crisis was to pass 14 years of backlogged leftist pet programs which had been gathering dust while they were out of power. Of the $787 billion spendulus package, only about 10% was expected to have any economic stimulus effect. At best, the other 90% maintained current consumption levels - they weren't "stimulative" in the slightest. Worse, this spending has prolonged unemployment and rewarded states for their own deficit spending and fealty to labor unions.There is a big distinction between stimulus and spending. Obama doesn't understand the difference and he really doesn't care to know.He signed the first spendulus bill loaded with a thousand earmarks and, after promising to NEVER do it again, signed another such bill recently.Never before has one man built so many false hopes and empty promises. The list of his broken promises should be legendary, but the media is ignoring it. Look how many promises he broke just to get this monstrosity of a health care bill. Frankly, I'd prefer Obama's single-payer system to this bastard devil-child of political back-room deals, posturing, and scheming. It's the worst possible outcome of the political process - ALL of the bad outcomes and costs of single-payer without any of the benefits.
Post a Comment