The Democrat Thread

[Jenksismyhero]

And we can just as easily blame Bush.

 

And he's not up for re-election so...

[Balta1701]

And he's not up for re-election so...

But his policies are.

[southsider2k5]

But his policies are.

 

Which is exact what Barack Obama wants you to believe.

[BigSqwert]

“Whether [the Bush administration] did or didn’t [find WMD], America was certainly safe between 2000 and 2008. I don’t remember any terrorist attacks on American soil during that period of time," - Fox News host Eric Bolling.

 

That big terrorist attack that killed 3K+ doesn't count, dummy.

[StrangeSox]

 

That big terrorist attack that killed 3K+ doesn't count, dummy.

 

Dana Perino (former Bush press sec.) made a similar flub a year or two ago.

[StrangeSox]

And I think the GOP can easily argue that the current deficit has Obama's fingerprints all over it.

 

The GOP easily argues a lot of fantasy rhetoric, so I don't doubt that they wouldn't have a hard time making that claim.

 

[Balta1701]

The relevant discussion is in the other thread, but these links are blogs, so I may as well put them here where no one will complain.

 

Krugman and DeLong have outlined, once again, the method by which, in a liquidity trap, budget cuts at the federal level actually make the deficit worse rather than better. (Remember, this only works in a depressed, high unemployment, low inflation economy where the inflation-adjusted interest rate on government debt is below 0%, which it is right now).

1. Fiscal contraction reduces output in the short run; this immediately means that part of the initial gain in terms of a lower deficit is offset by reduced revenue and higher safety-net spending. These effects are especially large when you’re in a liquidity trap, so monetary policy can’t fight the fiscal contraction.

 

2. Reductions in short-run output and employment take a toll on long-run growth, too: capital investment is depressed, workers lose their skills, and so on. This in turn reduces future revenues.

 

3. Meanwhile, with real interest rates very low — actually negative on 5-year bonds — the cost of borrowing now in terms of future debt burden is also very low.

 

 

[Balta1701]

Greetings Colbert Super PAC Members, Elite Members, Diamond Members, and Admiral-Level Human Wallets!

 

You are receiving this first regular update because you are one of the heroes with the balls to become a member of Colbert Super Pac. These are exciting times. Colbert Super PAC has been hailed in the national press as everything from "legal" to "dangerous." Your voice is being heard and I want to continue to hear from you!

 

So here's the latest on what Colbert Super Pac is up to. Soon we'll release our first TV commercial, and send Washington a strong message: "We can afford a commercial." And that's just the beginning of the commercial. There will be twenty-six more seconds in it, chock-full of other messages.

 

And let's face it: those messages are long overdue. America has forgotten who it is, where it's going, and how it got there. It's like America is the protagonist in one of those TV crime shows where a good cop loses his memories in an accident and has to piece them back together while solving a new murder every week. Luckily, America has help from a sexy love interest: Me. I should also mention that this show is on HBO, so you know there's gonna be boobs.

 

But we have to act now, or this promising drama will go the way of my other great ideas for shows, from "Wolf Attack: The Sitcom" to "Frasier 2." Colbert Super PAC needs YOUR support to make America great again, and I think we both know I'm talking about the kind of support that is green and worth money, because it is money, or an emerald. Both are acceptable.

 

So I urge you to drop everything and head to www.ColbertSuperPAC.com. Then pick up the credit card you dropped when I told you to drop everything.

 

Donate now. Donate often. Make a difference. Make a donate.

 

And together, we'll make a better tomorrow, tomorrow.

 

Sincerestly,

 

Stephen Colbert

 

Chairman and Dictator for Life, Colbert Super PAC

[StrangeSox]

lol just came here to post this

[Y2HH]

The relevant discussion is in the other thread, but these links are blogs, so I may as well put them here where no one will complain.

 

Krugman and DeLong have outlined, once again, the method by which, in a liquidity trap, budget cuts at the federal level actually make the deficit worse rather than better. (Remember, this only works in a depressed, high unemployment, low inflation economy where the inflation-adjusted interest rate on government debt is below 0%, which it is right now).

 

So Paul Krugman says not giving money away and not spending foolishly makes deficits worse?

 

I'm not surprised.

Edited July 16, 2011 by Y2HH

[Y2HH]

The GOP easily argues a lot of fantasy rhetoric, so I don't doubt that they wouldn't have a hard time making that claim.

 

 

The problem with that is Obama is staying the course, continuing every war (including starting a new one), as Bush...adding more bailouts, adding more deficit.

 

It's all of their faults. What Bush did is history, however...what Obama is doing is now. I guess the next guy can blame Obama, and the guy after that can blame that guy...and so on and so fourth...the problem is, nothing gets solved, nothing changes...because the people sit on forums arguing that it's the previous administrations fault rather than telling the new administration that they're sick of excuses and want things to actually -- get this -- change.

[southsider2k5]

The problem with that is Obama is staying the course, continuing every war (including starting a new one), as Bush...adding more bailouts, adding more deficit.

 

It's all of their faults. What Bush did is history, however...what Obama is doing is now. I guess the next guy can blame Obama, and the guy after that can blame that guy...and so on and so fourth...the problem is, nothing gets solved, nothing changes...because the people sit on forums arguing that it's the previous administrations fault rather than telling the new administration that they're sick of excuses and want things to actually -- get this -- change.

 

The funny part is I remember the indignant "When will you quit blaming Clinton for everything" posts.

[lostfan]

f*** Bill Clinton for leaving a surplus and a bunch of relatively minor problems for Bush to handle

[lostfan]

Driver A drives a car for several hundred miles, he's driving it really fast and he really needs to pull over and get gas, and has numerous opportunities to do so but he feels like gas costs too much, or he doesn't want to be bothered, or he just doesn't have to do it. At one point he even suggests something that vaguely sounds like "gas is just weighing the car down, so if we don't fill it up, we're actually using less gas." Eventually, Driver B takes over as the car is dangerously close to running out of gas. Driver B goes in the trunk and pulls out a canister of gas, putting just enough in the tank for the car to keep moving for a while, but it still really needs gas. However, by now, they're in a different state and the gas is more expensive and of lower quality. Driver B insists on filling up the tank, but Driver A's friends are all indignant by now and yell at him that he can't, that he has to take responsibility for his actions, and if the car has to run out of gas so be it, and in any case it's Driver B's fault for that happening anyway.

[southsider2k5]

f*** Bill Clinton for leaving a surplus and a bunch of relatively minor problems for Bush to handle

 

Except the reality is that he also left a major recession behind and that surplus was gone no matter who was the President next. That is a completely partisan line that ignores reality.

[southsider2k5]

Driver A drives a car for several hundred miles, he's driving it really fast and he really needs to pull over and get gas, and has numerous opportunities to do so but he feels like gas costs too much, or he doesn't want to be bothered, or he just doesn't have to do it. At one point he even suggests something that vaguely sounds like "gas is just weighing the car down, so if we don't fill it up, we're actually using less gas." Eventually, Driver B takes over as the car is dangerously close to running out of gas. Driver B goes in the trunk and pulls out a canister of gas, putting just enough in the tank for the car to keep moving for a while, but it still really needs gas. However, by now, they're in a different state and the gas is more expensive and of lower quality. Driver B insists on filling up the tank, but Driver A's friends are all indignant by now and yell at him that he can't, that he has to take responsibility for his actions, and if the car has to run out of gas so be it, and in any case it's Driver B's fault for that happening anyway.

 

Congrats, you just described 2001.

[Y2HH]

Except the reality is that he also left a major recession behind and that surplus was gone no matter who was the President next. That is a completely partisan line that ignores reality.

 

Clinton benefited from the .com bubble, however, credit where credit is due, he DID balance the budget. That said, they paid exactly ZERO debt down with that surplus, then came Bush who spent like a drunken sailor, then came Obama that continued on the path Bush set.

 

Every president comes into office with problems left behind by the older administration, that said, I don't believe the old administration WANTS to leave problems...it just happens. Bush inherited a post .com popped bubble, but that doesn't give him the excuse to blame Clinton at every turn, and so on down the line.

 

My problem is it's become "ok" to blame the previous administration in the eyes of the majority...this gives every new president a built in excuse to fail.

 

I don't accept that excuse. I wouldn't let Bush blame Clinton, and I'm not letting Obama blame Bush. Obama's entire campaign was that he was going to FIX all the s*** Bush f***ed up. Same goes for Bush, etc. Then they get into office and realize that a President only has so much power and can't wave a wand and "fix everything"...and the blame game begins.

 

Not interested in that blame game. Obama needs to right the ship, he's the captain now, no matter how hard it may be. And that's that.

[Jenksismyhero]

f*** Bill Clinton for leaving a surplus and a bunch of relatively minor problems for Bush to handle

 

Yeah Bin Laden was a pretty minor problem

[lostfan]

Yeah Bin Laden was a pretty minor problem

lol. Not even remotely the same thing. come on now. His administration briefed on that pretty thoroughly but the Bush administration was more concerned with pointless and expensive missile defense shields that would've been completely useless on 9-11. THEN it became a priority.

 

I don't really think you can compare the 2001 recession to the 2008 mega-recession in depth and scope, especially when you look at them on a graph together, but that's just me. I'm not pinning the 2008 recession on him either but the deficit is not Obama's fault. That's ludicrous, and easily traceable back to Bush and his policies without even much effort. It was there as soon as Obama took office. With the exception of the stimulus anything Obama's tried to do to reverse it in any kind of meaningful, structural way (ending Bush tax cuts, defense cuts of any kind, healthcare reform that actually does something to lower costs) is met with fierce, vigorous opposition.

[Y2HH]

lol. Not even remotely the same thing. come on now. His administration briefed on that pretty thoroughly but the Bush administration was more concerned with pointless and expensive missile defense shields that would've been completely useless on 9-11. THEN it became a priority.

 

I don't really think you can compare the 2001 recession to the 2008 mega-recession in depth and scope, especially when you look at them on a graph together, but that's just me. I'm not pinning the 2008 recession on him either but the deficit is not Obama's fault. That's ludicrous, and easily traceable back to Bush and his policies without even much effort. It was there as soon as Obama took office. With the exception of the stimulus anything Obama's tried to do to reverse it in any kind of meaningful, structural way (ending Bush tax cuts, defense cuts of any kind, healthcare reform that actually does something to lower costs) is met with fierce, vigorous opposition.

 

Yes, like how Obama waited until he lost his democratic SUPERmajorities in the house AND senate...when he COULD HAVE DONE THINGS but was so preoccupied with his barely-anything-resembling-Obamacare that he didn't?

 

Stop giving Obama excuses if you aren't going to afford Bush the same exact excuses. Bush was ONE guy. He lost his majority house/senate half way into office, and still got things passed despite a supermajority democratic house/senate. So if anything, the democratic house/senate passed everything you're b****ing about now...yet you blame Bush, and only Bush.

 

That makes no sense.

 

And while he had those supermajorities, fierce opposition wouldn't have mattered. His own party sold him out during the healthcare debate, when they didn't have too...because they're bought and paid for by the same corporations that own the republicans, too.

Edited July 16, 2011 by Y2HH

[Jenksismyhero]

lol. Not even remotely the same thing. come on now. His administration briefed on that pretty thoroughly but the Bush administration was more concerned with pointless and expensive missile defense shields that would've been completely useless on 9-11. THEN it became a priority.

 

I don't really think you can compare the 2001 recession to the 2008 mega-recession in depth and scope, especially when you look at them on a graph together, but that's just me. I'm not pinning the 2008 recession on him either but the deficit is not Obama's fault. That's ludicrous, and easily traceable back to Bush and his policies without even much effort. It was there as soon as Obama took office. With the exception of the stimulus anything Obama's tried to do to reverse it in any kind of meaningful, structural way (ending Bush tax cuts, defense cuts of any kind, healthcare reform that actually does something to lower costs) is met with fierce, vigorous opposition.

 

I'm not comparing the two, but if Obama extended most of Bush's policies, how can he really claim that the continually rising deficit is still Bush's fault, especially since his stimulus added a nice chunk?

 

I mean, people ARE stupid, and they've been fed a line that Bush was Hitler 2 so they'll probably buy it.

[Balta1701]

Stop giving Obama excuses if you aren't going to afford Bush the same exact excuses. Bush was ONE guy. He lost his majority house/senate half way into office, and still got things passed despite a supermajority democratic house/senate. So if anything, the democratic house/senate passed everything you're b****ing about now...yet you blame Bush, and only Bush.

 

That makes no sense.

 

And while he had those supermajorities, fierce opposition wouldn't have mattered. His own party sold him out during the healthcare debate, when they didn't have too...because they're bought and paid for by the same corporations that own the republicans, too.

What this tells you of course is that the Democrats pay a price for standing in the way of a President's wars priorities, while the Republicans do not.

[Balta1701]

With the exception of the stimulus anything Obama's tried to do to reverse it in any kind of meaningful, structural way (ending Bush tax cuts, defense cuts of any kind, healthcare reform that actually does something to lower costs) is met with fierce, vigorous opposition.

Worth pointing out...very few of those things on your list would have a positive impact on the economy. I'd contend that in 10 years or so the PPACA will be a strong positive, but not any time in the near future.

[Balta1701]

Except the reality is that he also left a major recession behind and that surplus was gone no matter who was the President next. That is a completely partisan line that ignores reality.

For once, I'll agree with 2k5 here...the 2001 recession and evaporation of most of that surplus was pretty much unavoidable.

 

Of course, I also have to add other caveats. First, the move to deficits rather than balance at that point was almost entirely a choice, made in the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, the 2003 Medicare Drug bill, the expansion of the DHS, and the unnecessary wars.

 

And the other caveat, especially regarding the follow up...the 2001 recession was a choice of the Clinton administration, they blew through (willingly) the level that was previously thought to be overheating, that was bound to push a recession in response. The 2008 debacle was entirely a policy choice as well. The lack of regulation of the financial industry, the hidden but bad employment situation, the focus on gains at the top while the rest of the population stagnated...those were all policy choices. Not all of them Bush choices (the 1999 Financial deregulation, for example), but they were all policy choices.

[Y2HH]

For once, I'll agree with 2k5 here...the 2001 recession and evaporation of most of that surplus was pretty much unavoidable.

 

Of course, I also have to add other caveats. First, the move to deficits rather than balance at that point was almost entirely a choice, made in the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, the 2003 Medicare Drug bill, the expansion of the DHS, and the unnecessary wars.

 

And the other caveat, especially regarding the follow up...the 2001 recession was a choice of the Clinton administration, they blew through (willingly) the level that was previously thought to be overheating, that was bound to push a recession in response. The 2008 debacle was entirely a policy choice as well. The lack of regulation of the financial industry, the hidden but bad employment situation, the focus on gains at the top while the rest of the population stagnated...those were all policy choices. Not all of them Bush choices (the 1999 Financial deregulation, for example), but they were all policy choices.

 

That .com bubble bursting was also helped along by poor fed decisions under Greenspan, who kept rocketing up the interest rates to "control" the markets. The only problem was that control was an illusion, at best.