By: Consider on 7/2/10
Nothing like wearing blinders and getting your history lessons from NPR or some other "non-partisan" news source :)

By: ccc on 7/2/10
Please explain?

By: Dinger on 7/2/10
I'll give you this Carl, your letter is thoughtful and you back up your assertions pretty well - I actually agree with some of it. Yes, the Republicans are guilty of some bad moves and I really don't like the blame the other party stuff that has only gotten worse. However, I do it, mostly to correct inaccuracies and flat-out misrepresentations.
We have to be careful not to just blame or give credit to administrations or Presidents. The President does not control the purse stings - that's Congress. Yes, the President can veto and he is expected to show leadership, but the result is always a combination of Administration and Congress actions. Reagan had a very adversarial relationship with Congress. After years of decline in the military, we were in pretty bad shape and it was one of Reagan's primary focuses to rebuild it. In order to pass his tax cuts and rebuild the military, he had to give in on Congress's wild spending in other areas and tolerate deficit spending. At the time, the deficit was such that this was not as worriesome as it is today. As a result, the economy took off and actual revenues to the government increased. The deficit was caused by spending, not tax cuts and it was a combination of Reagan's defense spending and the Democrat Congress's wild social spending. I would argue that Reagan's military spending helped end the cold war which allowed Clinton to benefit from the "Peace Dividend" by which he was able to reduce defense spending and help balance the budget.
Bush the elder tried to work cooperatively with the Democrat congress and they ran over him. His term had no direction and the economy faltered mildly after absorbing the Savings and Loan fallout.
While the budget got somewhat balanced in Clinton's term, you have to remember exactly what happened. After Newt's guys took over and the "Contract with America" was put in, They called for a balanced budget within 4 years. Clinton said "No way!". He said we could balance the budget, but doing so fast would unfairly impact the lower classes. He said we'll do it in 12 years. Newt said 4years. Clinton said 10, but its going to hurt. Newt said 4. Clinton said maybe 8, and so on. Point is that Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming into restrained spending. To his credit, he adjusted his views in the face of political reality and gave up on socialized healthcare and some other initiatives that would have precluded a balanced budget. He also refinanced much of the country's debt to shorter term instruments which was a huge gamble, but it worked out - sometimes it is better to be lucky than it is to be good.
The economy was in a slide (mostly just a normal business cycle correction as the tech bubble burst) well before Bush2 entered office. His remedy was to cut taxes across the board and it worked well - the recession ended pretty quickly and revenues to the government actually went up with the increased investment and commerce. The economy showed pretty good growth throughout Bush's term, even as it absorbed 911, a war, and volatile energy prices. The problem was, or course, spending. Bush was no fiscal conservative and the Republicans in Congress were not much better. Both parties spent like crazy. Like his father, Bush tried to work with Congress and he got run over. He worked with a Republican-controlled Congress and a Democrat-controlled Congress and vetoed practically nothing. Other than the tax cuts, he showed little leadership or vision in economic policy. Then, of course, the housing bubble burst. Even though there are many things that contributed to this, including bad legislation and Wall Street greed, I fault Chris Dood and Barney Frank, who chaired the entities that were supposed to prevent this kind of thing. They not only did not see it coming, I believe they helped CAUSE it by forcing lenders to make bad loans. Wall Street was made whole and Dodd & Frank are still heading their committees. Go figure.

Okay Carl, are the Republicans blaming Obama for their own mistakes? Bush, along with both Democrat and Republican Congresses spent money like crazy and ran up the deficit, for which people like you blast him. What's Obama's solution? Spend MUCH more and really run it up. Reagan and Bush2 inherited bad economies and they lowered taxes which spurred the economy and RAISED revenue to the government. Obama's solution? Raise taxes to further stifle any hope of recovery.
Again, I will only defend Republicans to the extent that attacks against them are unfair, misrepresentations, or lies. Of course Obama didn't get us into this poor economy, but what he is doing now is making far worse - NOT better!!
Why would any business invest in growing their business and hire more people? They have no idea what their investment will do. They are looking at more regulation, uncertain healthcare costs, higher taxes, uncertain dollar valuation, and pending inflation. No, businesses are hunkering down, reducing inventory, and finding any way they can to realize profits this year, before taxes go up on Jan 1. I've been through many up&down business cycles. This one is different. There is simply no basis for optimism, only uncertainty.

By: Fbodutchman on 7/2/10
Carl-
One BIG correction. It was Bill Clinton who was the sitting president that deregulated banks. Regan dergulated lots of things but not the selling of bad loans as investments!!!!

By: Consider on 7/2/10
Thank you Dinger and Fbodutchman - I really did not want to try and address all of the distortions in this letter.

I will not defend the Republican party - as Dinger stated, in more words than I care to write, many in the party have failed us. However, many of those who failed are being challenged and beaten in primaries across the country.

About the only thing not yet addressed in Carl's letter is the lying about weapons of mass destruction and the no-bid contracts. To those:
All evidence points to the administration receiving intel and responding based on what they believed to be true. They were given conflicting reports and they made a decision. They may have been wrong, but even the Iraqi government gave them reason to believe the weapons existed.
No-bid contracts are sometimes needed, and the connections to Cheney no longer existed. While it may look bad, using a known resource In an emergency setting makes sense.

By: ccc on 7/2/10
Are we better off today than we were a year ago?

By: Dinger on 7/2/10
Consider - true. I would add that as bad as the Haliburton thing is, Obama has not cancelled their contracts and they are still doing their thing. Also, to follow that logic, if using Haliburton because of the Cheney connection is so bad, why haven't the Dems been critical of ACORN's contracts with the Gov't? Or contracts that Murtha funneled to his son's firm? While I admit that using Haliburton 'looks' bad and did, indeed warrant scrutiny, fact is there are not many companies qualified to do the work required and Haliburton really was the right company for the job.

By: ccc on 7/2/10
Hello? Republicans please answer. Aren't we better off today than we were a year ago? Stock market, housing, jobs ..... All I ever see on here is complain, complain, complain. Weren't we in the worst recession since the depression and now it sure feels like things are going in a better direction. Jobs are always the last thing to come around. How can you compare the bad economy that bush and reagan had to the current situation:
----------
"What's Obama's solution? Spend MUCH more and really run it up. Reagan and Bush2 inherited bad economies and they lowered taxes which spurred the economy and RAISED revenue to the government. Obama's solution? Raise taxes to further stifle any hope of recovery.
Again, I will only defend Republicans to the extent that attacks against them are unfair, misrepresentations, or lies. Of course Obama didn't get us into this poor economy, but what he is doing now is making far worse - NOT better!! "
--------

How can people forget where we were a year ago ..... and why won't people give Obama a chance. At least he is doing something ....

By: Consider on 7/2/10
ccc - A year ago? Over a year ago Obama told us to pass his latest stimulus so that unemployment would not rise to 8.5%. His plan was passed and we've seen unemployment rise to 10%. This has now dropped slightly, but not due to increased hiring. There are even fewer jobs, and more people have simply quit looking, which makes the unemployment numbers appear even better than they are.

Housing is slumping again, stocks are declining again - what has improved?

By: ccc on 7/2/10
What has improved? Really ......

#1 - Stock Market
2/2009 = 7,000
1-6/2010 = 10,000 avg

#2 - Recession 2009, isn't the recession over?

#3 - A year ago weren't you worried about your job, your friends etc overall sense of fear? Did we forget? People losing houses at record rates, bank failures .... car lots couldn't keep inventory on their lot ......

I'm not saying it is all fixed ... BUT ..... as soon as things start looking a bit better ... better rip on Obama for something else .... now the debt.

Jobs are the last to come around ... always has been. Companies don't start re-hiring until they get things in order. It is early yet, but things are looking better

Again ... it is back to complaining ....."Obama told us to pass his latest stimulus so that unemployment would not rise to 8.5%" - if every politician had a crystal ball, if we could all not say something that proved not to be the case.

It is easy being the monday morning quarterback ...

How can you say things haven't improved?

By: Dinger on 7/2/10
The economy numbers are better than a year ago, but I would argue that they would have been much better without TARP (Thanks Bush), Bailouts, Stimulus, and the unchecked growth of government. As it is, we are in grave danger of a double dip. With taxes going up in Jan., any company or individual who has the means to move income from next year to this year is doing so. There will increased economic activity now, at the expense of later. I expect to see a big drop in January just as car sales dropped off in the months after cash for clunkers ended and home sale dropped after the homebuyers credit ended. I could be wrong (hope so), but we'll see.
The other thing you are ignoring is what's on the horizon... the crushing debt we are now taking on is very likely to destroy the US credit rating, which will increase our debt even more and there will be nobody willing to carry the loan. The US economy could completely collapse. Do you think what happened to Greece is that different than what is happening here? Are we somehow immune to this?
The economy numbers may be marginally better in some areas, but we are far from better off!

By: ccc on 7/2/10
Thank you Dinger. I don't know that I agree with you on everything ... however I respect that you have some interesting insight. So do you think the economy would have been much better if Obama would have just left it alone? Let the recession roll?

Yes there is debt ..... but hasn't Obama been saying ... we first deal with the recession, then deal with the debt?

If people don't think jobs are any better ..... compare last year's employment ads to todays ... people are hiring.

There are ups and downs ... and plenty to be worried about. But why can't anyone give Obama a break and let him do his job. I think people forget how they felt a year ago ...

By: Dinger on 7/2/10
Sum it up this way - Last week I was broke and past due on my electric bill. Today I took out three payday loans and paid my electric bill with $5 to spare. I have $5 in my pocket that I didn't have last week. Am I better off than I was???

As far as doing nothing when the recession hit... We have bankruptcy laws that are designed to care of exactly this. Let the companies that fail go through this process. "Too big to Fail" is a joke. In bankruptcy, the assets and debts are sold off and/or written off. In many cases, the companies can reorganize and emerge stronger than before. The point is to let the adjustment happen (painful as it may be) and move on. As it stands, the same companies and the same policies and practices that caused the meltdown are still at it. Nothing has been fixed except a couple loopholes have been closed - bandaids. Dodd and Frank are still there, the Wall Street cronies are still doing their thing, Fanny and Freddie are still at it. The only thing that has changed is that tens of thousands of dollars of equity has vanished from my balance sheet. We have to have a special commission and hearings to investigate a Toyota safety issue, yet the causes of the biggest financial meltdown in history have yet to be investigated, analyzed, debated, and corrected. Both parties are happy with the status quo.
I really do try to be fair in my criticisms of Obama and I try not to be a knee-jerk maysayer - I stick to his actions on policy issues only and I am afraid there is very little on which I can agree with him.

By: gatorfan on 7/2/10
Unfortunately, 4 years ago (the last time republicans controlled congresses purse strings) we were better off than we were 3 years ago; 3 years ago better than 2 years ago; 2 years ago better than this year; and it's looking like this year's going to be much better than next year. We've run up massive debt and the pipe line of free cash is ending. As a simple example, since the stimulus funding is ending, our State budget for next year needs to be cut by 26% for it to balance (or taxes magically raised by that amount). Household unemployment is now at 16.5%; it's looking ever more certain that it'll go way up next year as Federal, State and Local gov'ts won't have the revenue to keep all the people they've hired.

By: gatorfan on 7/2/10
BTW, the 9.5% unemployment number that is frequently quoted in the papers is the percentage of people receiving unemployment benefits. The 16.5% household unemployment number is the percentage of people who are truly unemployed.

By: gatorfan on 7/2/10
Correction, the 9.5% does include a sampling of people not receiving benefits; the big difference between the two numbers is the latter includes "discouraged" workers that are no longer seeking work because they feel no jobs are available.

By: CantCatchaBreak on 7/2/10
I would love to know how we would be better off without Tarp???

Dinger - no one was buying anything credit was frozen....who was going to buy it?? Solid companies were struggling to float commercial paper to pay wages. All of these companies were tangled together and would have collapsed together. We had solid industrial companies that had huge banking arms because government decided to take the risk of loss away.

We have plenty of infrastructure items we could spend money on now to put people back to work and also stop paying the current people to not work.

Our state needs to figure out its spending issue without raising taxes in an effort to raise revenues, which really might not raise revenues at all. We don't need to lay people off, but the people at the top need a haircut, in my opinion.

We need people working and infrastructure projects and then reduce government and go back to the private market and raise taxes to pay off the debt.

By: Dinger on 7/2/10
CantCatchaBreak - I know I oversimplified the issue and some form of government action was probably needed, but we went WAY overboard and propped up institutions that should have broken up or failed completely.

I am not a fan of stimulus spending, but if we are going to do it, infrastructure spending is good. The problem is, only a tiny fraction of the stimulus that was passed is actually going to infrastructure and other stimulative items.

I can't argue too much about haircutting at the top. The problem is having government defining who gets a haircut and who doesn't. Also, the government intrusion into private industry and telling people what they can earn is something that will bite this nation badly. Free market capitalism is not perfect and we have to tolerate some inequity, but it is still a far better system than central government command/control systems.

By: CantCatchaBreak on 7/2/10
Dinger - seems tough to me to have government break up companies that should have failed when it was back stopping losses and encouraged more risk than was needed at the same time not being able to get our interest rates up to stem off additional bubbles that later led to a sudden price drop. I love the free market, but the huge government fly wheel isn't going anywhere so I think we need to work with this current system until it can be transitioned out.

By: secretsquirrel on 7/3/10
Y'all can blame whoever you want. Let me know when it changes something.
Frankly, I believe the change needs to come from all of us. The only way to change it is at the voting booth. Our votes are what has been wrong all these years.
I read an email the other day where the question was posed:
Why do we have fifty candidates for Miss America and only two for president?
Hardly seems fair.

By: gobush on 7/5/10
ccc, read the article at the following site and tell me if the economy is better off.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39352.html

By: ccc on 7/5/10
Gobush ...

WikiAnswers
Q: Politico?

A: Read it for awhile and saw rather superficial coverage of some issues. Also noticed that they seemed to repeat discredited or misleading "facts". Recently heard someone on television refer to it as conservative. Seems to be as is most mainstream media.
Frederick J. Ryan Jr. is the President and CEO of politico.com. Used to work for Reagan and currently "serves as the Chairman of the Board of Trustees for the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation", per Wikipedia. Says it all, doesn't it? That's a good way to determine the political bent of a website - find out who's in charge, then look at their history and where they make their money.

By: ccc on 7/6/10
Hello ..... GoBush? ... Repubitchens? ... Where are you?

The very first post of this thread refers to a biased news source:

"By: Consider on 7/2/10
Nothing like wearing blinders and getting your history lessons from NPR or some other "non-partisan" news source :)"

And then we end with a "non-partisan" news source from GoBush .... politico .... a pro-republican source ...

Quit complaining, quit finding fault .... find something to be positive about. It is so tiring to read the Obama bashing all of the time from you folks. Yes, you can spout statistics, and What ifs, and I told you so's ... get real, wake up ... we are better off today than a year ago, and we'll be better off a year from now. Let our government do their job.

Aren't you hurting the entire process by just finding fault all of the time?

We just left the worst recession since the great depression, Obama made choices, he put his butt on the line ... and I find a few things to talk about that are positive and ...... WOW!

And all you folks can do is complain, complain, complain .....

Stats ..... what ifs ... monday morning quarterbacks ..... why don't you just trying supporting the home team once .... isn't it supposed to be "our government" ? Not "the government"!

By: Dinger on 7/7/10
CCC,
You're right. I, for one will try to do better. It really is important that we support our president and give him our unflinching loyalty. From here on out, I will follow the shining example of the left and support Obama just as well as they supported Bush for eight years;)

By: bpaukert on 7/7/10
Politico is anything but a conservative news source. I've read their stuff and if anything they tilt left, but probably not far enough left for ccc's tastes.

By: Chris on 7/8/10
Bpaukert, what is the color of the sky in your world? Politico is financed by noted conservative Robert Allbritton, air to the Riggs Bank, whose father, Joe, was a personal friend of Ford, and eventually a fan of Reagan to the point of sponsoring the presidential portrait of Regan in the White House. Politico was created as an inside the beltway "old fashioned" news source to bag ad dollars from lobbyists and other Washington based groups. As noted by ccc, its CEO of Politico is the Chairman of the Board of Trustees for the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation. It is edited by two center right former Post employees who fled as the Post returned to its more liberal roots in the run up to '08. Its content is decidedly chummy inside the beltway stuff, with a neutral tone to appease the politically involved sources of its advertising revenue. But, make no mistake, its leadership favors Ronald Regan conservative viewpoints. It is a Fox in sheep's clothing.