Mt Whitney Webcam
Mt Williamson Webcam
Feature Topics
Who's Online
1 registered (1 invisible), 35 Guests and 42 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
3409 Members
10 Forums
5338 Topics
49301 Posts

Max Online: 382 @ 11/07/12 05:45 AM
Page 8 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >
Topic Options
#30299 - 03/13/13 09:44 PM Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering [Re: SierraNevada]
Bee Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1261
Loc: Northern California
Originally Posted By: SierraNevada
Unfortunately, he didn't adjust course once the economy got moving.


Interesting, I said the same thing about Greenspan when he lowered the interest rates to kickstart housing (after the abrupt housing cool-down in the 90's)and did not raise them back up in the early-mid 2000's, when housing 'recovered' (not addressing all of the crud that helped build the bubble; raising interst rates would have helped -- especially when he continually warned about the bubble)
_________________________
The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

Top
#30300 - 03/13/13 10:35 PM Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering [Re: SierraNevada]
tdtz Offline


Registered: 08/26/10
Posts: 511
Loc: CA
Quote:
The best chance we ever had at paying down our debt was at the end of the Clinton administration. The surplus in fiscal year 2000 was $237 billion—the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever. In 2001, Bush's budget estimated that there would be a $5.6 trillion surplus over the next ten years. Instead of staying the course and paying down the national debt, he doubled the debt from $5.6 trillion to $11.3 trillion.


There was never any Clinton surplus. It is a myth. And if you dig into this without bias you can prove it for yourself.

Clinton's economic policies created a bubble, that did increase tax revenues which shows as a positive on the federal government's balance sheet, but it also created the most unhealthy economic environment most of us have seen in our lives. Bubbles necessarily pop.

The myth of the Clinton Surplus explained.
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16/
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/30

Clinton is as responsible for the current economic situation as Bush. Both of whom created bubbles (with the help of their congresses & the Fed)

Top
#30301 - 03/13/13 10:39 PM Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering [Re: KevinR]
tdtz Offline


Registered: 08/26/10
Posts: 511
Loc: CA
Quote:
Harvey - to call President Obama an extremist is completely ludicrous. If I were to compare his positions to long-established politicians, then Bob Dole comes immediately to mind. Dole was a moderate, middle-of-the-road Republican.


Obama is an extremist in much the same way that tea partiers are extremists. Obama is an extremist in his anti-Constitutional policies and views and tea partiers are extremists in their support of the Constitution.

Top
#30302 - 03/13/13 10:51 PM Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering [Re: tdtz]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1116
Loc: NorCal
This is nonsense, that there were no surpluses under Clinton. There were budget surpluses at the end of the Clinton administration and even your article states that, "...the public debt went down in each of those four years." That is an excellent outcome for any President and the only time it happened recent history. Furthermore, Bush projected a $5.6 trillion surplus based on the trend at that point in time as he took office. So, I guess you're calling Bush a liar.

I understand you lost your shorts in the dotcom bubble, but how can you blame a president for out of control stock speculation. If he stepped in to regulate the stock market, you would've accused him of interfering with the free market. And I guess he was a bit tied up with that little impeachment thing to be solving real problems.


Edited by SierraNevada (03/13/13 11:18 PM)

Top
#30305 - 03/13/13 11:33 PM Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering [Re: SierraNevada]
tdtz Offline


Registered: 08/26/10
Posts: 511
Loc: CA
Quote:
This is nonsense. There were budget surpluses at the end of the Clinton administration and even your article states that, "...the public debt went down in each of those four years." That is an excellent outcome for any President and the only time it happened recent history. Furthermore, Bush projected a $5.6 trillion surplus based on the trend at that point in time. So, I guess you're calling Bush a liar.

I understand you lost your shorts in the dotcom bubble, but how can you blame a president for out of control stock speculation. If he stepped in to regulate the stock market, you would've accused him of interfering with the free market.


Well, I have no problem calling Bush a liar when it is warranted, But projecting a surplus and having a surplus are two different things. Additionally, taking funds that are earmarked for a specific purpose (social security) and using it to pay down debt isn't really creating a surplus (look it up, Clinton did it).

That's the fun thing about statistics, if you slice them just right, you can make them say whatever you want. If you measure from 1995 to early 2000, the trajectory is glorious. But if you measure from 2000 to 2003, it is tragic. That's what happens when tax revenues dry up and spending stays at boom levels.

I did lose a lot of money in the dotcom implosion. I also made a bunch. Overall, I came out on the plus side. It's amazing that people are willing to give Clinton all kinds of credit for the economic situation in the 90s while not recognizing that, if he was responsible for what was perceived as great economic times, he is also responsible for the fallout. Now, I will admit that he doesn't get as much blame (or credit) as some might suggest. There was going to be a bull market anyway...cycles happen. But his monetary policy (and that of congress) along with the Fed (Greenspan, heavily influenced by Clinton) caused the amplitude of the cycle to become greatly exaggerated. Bush/Congress/Fed did the same thing with the housing/credit bubble. It was this meddling in the free market that caused the bubbles and subsequent implosions. Bubbles pop. They are not healthy, regardless of which party is in power.

I realize that you think that it is non-sense, but you haven't provided any evidence to dispute the evidence. There was no surplus. You can't have surplus if you still have debt. It's as simple as that. And again, using funds that are supposed to be protected, as social security is, to pay down debt, is just playing with a balance sheet and not even really reducing debt.

Do you honestly believe that Clinton/Congress/Fed had nothing to do with the out of control stock speculation?

If you absolve Clinton of the responsibility, why don't you absolve Bush from the housing/credit bubble? (which was really engineered by a bunch of democrats with the fair housing act, with the wimplike acquiescence of Bush).

Did I mention that there hasn't been a free market in the U.S. in 70 years? It is the meddling in the markets that caused all of this. I won't complain when they stop. And yes, there will be some economic pain when it happens. Stepping in to regulate the stock market wasn't what was needed. What we needed was for Clinton/Congress/Fed to stop providing artificial stimulants to the market.

We people are prone to panic during extremes of cyclical events. Weather cycles go to one end or the other and we are panicking about the next ice age or global warming. And we take dramatic steps that will not change things one way or the other, except to harm our economy. Or we will be in a negative economic cycle and we panic because it will never get better, so we enact crazy economic policies to offset the down cycle and end up over steering and exaggerating the cycles.


Top
#30308 - 03/14/13 08:02 AM Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering [Re: tdtz]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1116
Loc: NorCal
Originally Posted By: tdtz

I realize that you think that it is non-sense, but you haven't provided any evidence to dispute the evidence. There was no surplus. You can't have surplus if you still have debt. It's as simple as that. And again, using funds that are supposed to be protected, as social security is, to pay down debt, is just playing with a balance sheet and not even really reducing debt.

There is a difference between budget surplus (revenues higher than expenditures in a given fiscal year) vs federal debt (sum of all previous budget deficits). The articles you link to prove my point with text and tables. They show annual budget surpluses, which are as a direct result of Clinton fiscal policy. That's the best federal budget performance in modern history, in stark contrast to Reagan-Bush Sr before him, and Bush Jr. after him. Of course it didn't make a big dent in the much larger federal debt, which accumulated over 200+ years and just quadrupled in the preceding 12 years under Reaganomics. Fact is, Clinton policy resulted in federal budget surpluses and we were heading in a positive direction. If Bush Jr. were fiscally responsible, he would've stayed that course.

It's nonsense to add "intragovernment holdings" just to complicate the picture to deny reality, which is the gist of your articles. The reality is Clinton policy led to greater revenue than expenditures - a net surplus for the last few years of his presidency. He inherit large deficits and his policies turned it around. He is responsible for that positive outcome. By contrast, cutting taxes on the top brackets has never led to a budget surplus. They led to deficit spending, which is stimulative but sometimes necessary, and they transferred a tremendous share of wealth to the wealthiest. It's simple arithmetic.

I admit to being partisan on this issue because I'm a fiscal conservative, the facts are so clear on this matter, and the Republican hypocrisy is disturbing. A Democratic President and Republican Congress should be the best arrangement for dealing with debt, but unfortunately one side seems to think we have arrived at the holy grail of tax policy and nothing can be raised to create a balanced approach to the problem. They even want to cut taxes again, which is ridiculously irresponsible.

Again, what exactly was Clinton supposed to do to stop the market speculation on Wall Street known afterward as the "dotcom bubble" while being impeached for having an affair.

Top
#30310 - 03/14/13 09:32 AM Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering [Re: SierraNevada]
wbtravis Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1242
Loc: Corner of Jack Benny and Roche...
Champs at deficits? By what measure? GWB and Regans deficits on average were less than 3% of GDP whereas Obama's deficits have averaged close 9%, the highest in the post WW II era.

Clinton's surplus were capital gains driven. If God were elected in 2000, he would have had a deficit, even if 9/11 did not occur. There was this thing called the dotcom bust that flushed all those surpluses and then some down the toilet.

Every administration since Hoover has run a deficit...including Clinton's, just add up what revenues were taken in minus what he spent.


Edited by wbtravis (03/14/13 09:33 AM)

Top
#30312 - 03/14/13 10:08 AM Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering [Re: SierraNevada]
tdtz Offline


Registered: 08/26/10
Posts: 511
Loc: CA
Quote:
I admit to being partisan on this issue because I'm a fiscal conservative, the facts are so clear on this matter, and the Republican hypocrisy is disturbing. A Democratic President and Republican Congress should be the best arrangement for dealing with debt, but unfortunately one side seems to think we have arrived at the holy grail of tax policy and nothing can be raised to create a balanced approach to the problem. They even want to cut taxes again, which is ridiculously irresponsible.


I am glad you admit to being partisan. You will notice that I don't tout Bush or Reagan...ever. In fact, you will notice that I haven't given any indication that I approve of Bush's policies and that I actively disapproved of them. I've done that multiple times on this thread and yet his name is thrown at me as if to prove something.

Quote:
Again, what exactly was Clinton supposed to do to stop the market speculation on Wall Street known afterward as the "dotcom bubble" while being impeached for having an affair.


This is the part that most people have a problem with. I prefer inaction when it comes to government. When you say "what was Clinton supposed to do", it's what I want him to NOT do. Clinton encouraged a loose money policy. Though he only requested specific action from the fed a few times, Greenspan's loose money policy was very much in line with his own. He also increased money supply through the treasury. His policies made money cheap. Cheap money finds its way to the investment market which contributed to the inflation of the bubble.

Now, before you go off on me for changing my tune, please go back and read what I wrote about Clinton. I said (and I'm not even looking) "if you give Clinton credit for the boom, you have to blame him for the bust" (paraphrased). I also stated that the bubble was going to happen anyway, that it was cyclical, it's that his policies increased the amplitude of the cycle.

It's similar to the Bush situation, it cannot be denied that he inherited a big ole bag of steaming economic crap. He also inherited an international situation that was more challenging that almost any other president in history. 9/11 happened only 8 months into his presidency. It was planned during Clinton's tenure. And given the liberal tendency to blame the past president, if you blame Bush for Obama economic and foreign policy situation, then you have to blame Clinton for the one that Bush received. That is, if you want to maintain some level of intellectual honesty. The economic policies of Bush/Congress/Fed encouraged the credit/housing bubble through RE speculation. Easy money finds it's way into investments and inflates the investment beyond reasonable expected value. And then it implodes.

But back to the myth of the Clinton surplus. During the years that there was a claim that there was a budget surplus, the national debt went up. In one of the years that he claimed a surplus, the national debt went from $4.3T to $5.6T. You don't increase your debt by $1.3T when you have a budget surplus.

When the surplus was claimed, it excluded intergovernmental holdings. They claimed loans from social security as revenue on budget reports. That's where the "surplus" came from...it was an accounting trick. And this accounting trick created a false sense of security in the investment community that also helped to inflate the bubble. In other words, you claiming it is nonsense, doesn't make it so.

Think of this in the corporate realm. A corporation has a subsidiary. It shows the revenues and assets of the subsidiary on its balance sheet. Then the parent corporation takes a loan from the subsidiary and claims that loan as revenue. Thus giving a greater EPS which attracts more investors,thus raising the price of the stock. Do you think that the SEC might have a problem with this? That's what the Clinton administration did.

and finally, cutting taxes is a great idea! It stimulates the economy in multiple ways. It allows money to be invested in private businesses which then pay more taxes. It allows you and I to spend more money on goods and services rather than throwing it into the dead money pit of the US government.

Oh, and Clinton wasn't impeached for having an affair. He was impeached for lying to congress about it. Personally, I could give a crap about it. But it does show that he is a slimebag. If a corporate executive in his 50s had an affair with an intern in her early 20s, everybody would (and should) cry sexual harassment. There was a disproportionate power relationship and he had a responsibility to not exploit it.

Top
#30336 - 03/14/13 06:06 PM Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering [Re: tdtz]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1116
Loc: NorCal
Originally Posted By: tdtz
Clinton encouraged a loose money policy. Though he only requested specific action from the fed a few times, Greenspan's loose money policy was very much in line with his own. He also increased money supply through the treasury. His policies made money cheap. Cheap money finds its way to the investment market which contributed to the inflation of the bubble.

That's it. That's why you blame Clinton 14 yrs later for the Great Recession? Because "his policies made money cheap" back in the 1990s." OK. Wow.

You and wbtravis just won't give up on that nonsense trying to rewrite the Clinton surpluses. For those following along, factcheck and others debunked this nonsense years ago:
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/
Bottom line: There was a surplus under Clinton no matter how hard you try to deny it.


More importantly, Clinton economic policy reversed Reaganomic policy and what happened? He raised taxes on the wealthy, but the economy did not crash. Amazing, let's repeat that - he raised taxes on the wealthy and the economy did not crash. In fact it started one of the best economic expansions in our history and yes, it ended in budget surpluses. The best budget performance in modern times no matter how you twist it. Bush Jr. felt so good about what he inherited from Clinton, he declared a $5.6 trillion dollar surplus for the next 10 years.

And then we went back to Reganomics Part 2 with even deeper tax cuts. The deficits returned and soared. The wealth of the wealthy soared and the middle class stagnated. Banks were allowed into the brokerage business and leveraged their assets like the 1920s. The result was a historic disaster.

With 40 years of recent data from two different approaches, it's quite obvious what works and what doesn't. The recent budget deficits have peaked and are beginning to come down. If the obstructions get out of the way and allow a balanced approach to this problem, I'm confident the deficits will continue to decline steadily.

Top
#30345 - 03/14/13 08:37 PM Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering [Re: SierraNevada]
tdtz Offline


Registered: 08/26/10
Posts: 511
Loc: CA
It would help if you actually read what I wrote....

Top
#30346 - 03/15/13 05:01 AM Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering [Re: tdtz]
KevinR Offline


Registered: 11/03/09
Posts: 587
Loc: Manchester, NH
Paul Krugman has a good piece - After the FlimFlam- in the NYT this morning.

Undoubtably it will provoke the usual histrionics from the 'baggers following this thread... wink

Top
#30348 - 03/15/13 06:58 AM Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering [Re: KevinR]
tdtz Offline


Registered: 08/26/10
Posts: 511
Loc: CA
Quote:
Undoubtably it will provoke the usual histrionics from the 'baggers following this thread..


No histrionics, just laughter at the liberal gnomes

Liberal Progressive economic policy summed up in 10 seconds....

Top
#30350 - 03/15/13 07:56 AM Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering [Re: KevinR]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1116
Loc: NorCal
Originally Posted By: KevinR
Paul Krugman has a good piece - After the FlimFlam- in the NYT this morning.

Undoubtably it will provoke the usual histrionics from the 'baggers following this thread... wink

Kevin, labeling others is taunting and it detracts from your content.


Top
#30351 - 03/15/13 09:10 AM Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering [Re: SierraNevada]
wbtravis Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1242
Loc: Corner of Jack Benny and Roche...
Originally Posted By: SierraNevada
Originally Posted By: tdtz
Clinton encouraged a loose money policy. Though he only requested specific action from the fed a few times, Greenspan's loose money policy was very much in line with his own. He also increased money supply through the treasury. His policies made money cheap. Cheap money finds its way to the investment market which contributed to the inflation of the bubble.

That's it. That's why you blame Clinton 14 yrs later for the Great Recession? Because "his policies made money cheap" back in the 1990s." OK. Wow.

You and wbtravis just won't give up on that nonsense trying to rewrite the Clinton surpluses. For those following along, factcheck and others debunked this nonsense years ago:
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/
Bottom line: There was a surplus under Clinton no matter how hard you try to deny it.


More importantly, Clinton economic policy reversed Reaganomic policy and what happened? He raised taxes on the wealthy, but the economy did not crash. Amazing, let's repeat that - he raised taxes on the wealthy and the economy did not crash. In fact it started one of the best economic expansions in our history and yes, it ended in budget surpluses. The best budget performance in modern times no matter how you twist it. Bush Jr. felt so good about what he inherited from Clinton, he declared a $5.6 trillion dollar surplus for the next 10 years.

And then we went back to Reganomics Part 2 with even deeper tax cuts. The deficits returned and soared. The wealth of the wealthy soared and the middle class stagnated. Banks were allowed into the brokerage business and leveraged their assets like the 1920s. The result was a historic disaster.

With 40 years of recent data from two different approaches, it's quite obvious what works and what doesn't. The recent budget deficits have peaked and are beginning to come down. If the obstructions get out of the way and allow a balanced approach to this problem, I'm confident the deficits will continue to decline steadily.


Let me see if I got this right. I have denied there was a surplus during the Clinton Administration. That is patently false. There were times Mr. Clinton ran a surplus but like all administrations since Hoover his administration was in the red...just add up the surpluses and deduct the deficits.

Hmmm...someone did. Damn, that internet thingy is really too cool for school...

Total surplus from 1993-2000...$430.2 bn, total Deficits $751.8 bn. I went to public school in Philadelphia but it appears to me the deficits are just a tad larger then surpluses in the eight years Mr. Clinton was in office. http://tinyurl.com/2d5dtr7

You are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts.

Top
#30355 - 03/15/13 01:04 PM Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering [Re: wbtravis]
saltydog Offline


Registered: 02/03/11
Posts: 1553
Loc: Valley Ford CA!!!!
SO, how about that Whitney Portal Road clearing budget debacle, huh?
_________________________
Wherever you go, there you are.
SPOTMe!

Top
#30356 - 03/15/13 04:53 PM Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering [Re: saltydog]
Bee Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1261
Loc: Northern California
Originally Posted By: saltydog
SO, how about that Whitney Portal Road clearing budget debacle, huh?


Did I miss something? I don't recall the Portal Road mentioned in the 'sequestering' cutbacks...Well, then again, I don't recall most of the last two pages of this thread as part of the 'consequences' of sequestering, either.
_________________________
The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

Top
#30357 - 03/15/13 05:02 PM Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering [Re: Bee]
tdtz Offline


Registered: 08/26/10
Posts: 511
Loc: CA
Quote:
Did I miss something? I don't recall the Portal Road mentioned in the 'sequestering' cutbacks...Well, then again, I don't recall most of the last two pages of this thread as part of the 'consequences' of sequestering, either.


Perhaps part of the problem is that sequestering really isn't the issue with original title of the thread. It's just a political stunt.

But, I did try to tie the conversation to sequestering and Yosemite. Please see bold below. And it turns out, I only had to go back one page.
=====================================================
No kidding, we have people like Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Lawrence O'Donnell, Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, Al Sharpton, Candy Crowley, Bill Maher and all of the daytime chat shows like "the View" feeding the uninformed voting public a bunch of sensationalist pablum to keep the ratings up.

Politics in general is corrupt. That is why it is a good idea to give our politicians less power, not more. It's also a good idea to have a budget and to require our government to operate with fiscal responsibility. If they don't, we should demand that they start making cuts. Especially in areas were they have strayed off into areas where they have no constitutional right or power to spend money.

I believe that a strong case can be made to justify the activities of the Department of the Interior and specifically the National Parks and National Forests. And there just isn't a whole lot of fiscal abuse going on in the DoI.

We should all be screaming at our government for destroying our economy with out of control entitlement programs. These are exacerbated with lax border security and an illegal immigrant policy that allows illegal immigrants to stay and we reward them with various entitlement benefits.

Because of our entitlement programs and illegal immigrant policies we lose legitimate services for legitimate citizens.

But if y'all want to keep all of those entitlement programs, then something has got to give. And it looks like our government has chosen the national parks as one of the unessential services. It is the people voting for entitlement programs who are putting access to Yosemite and the White House at jeopardy.

Top
#30365 - 03/15/13 11:25 PM Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering [Re: tdtz]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1116
Loc: NorCal
Originally Posted By: tdtz
It's also a good idea to have a budget and to require our government to operate with fiscal responsibility.

I agree, as a fiscal conservative, I love to discuss fiscal responsibility. Like any political independent, I appreciate that our system depends on two healthy parties, debating various issues and respecting the will of the public based on the outcome of elections. So let's examine the fiscal responsibility when each party won the national election and controlled the White House. The President never gets everything of course, but historically the losing party respectfully deferred to the victor to a large extent. Not so today, but extreme obstruction and record filibusters is another topic.

Notice the steep drop in top tax rate during the roaring 20's. There was a massive shift in wealth to the wealthiest and the end result was the Great Depression. Also notice that Reagan returned us to that general range for the top tax rate in the 1980s. What was the result? Quadrupling of 200 years of national debt.


Notice how the debt decreased under the Clinton administration. What happened? A fiscally responsible slight increase in the upper tax rate led to reducing deficits and even SURPLUSES. The tax increase was not easy. It took the Vice President (also President of the Senate) to cast the tie breaking vote to make this happen in 1993.
The evidence is clear and irrefutable, Republican "supply side" economic policies have resulted in fiscal irresponsibly and large budget deficits. As an added consequence, extremely low top tax rates dramatically shifted wealth to the top and eventually led to the Great Depression and the Great Recession. Republican obstructionism has resulted in government shutdowns in the 1990s, record filibusters, credit rating reductions due to failure to raise the debt ceiling, and now sequestration. Not to mention wasting time on repealing Obamacare 35 times - the definition of insanity - repeating the same thing hoping for a different outcome. Even Fox News is telling them it ain't gonna happen.

Ever since Reagan, each Republican president inherited declining budget deficits from a Democratic administration and then left office with increasing budget deficits. Each Democratic administration in the last 40 years has inherited rising deficits and reversed them. Even today, the deficits inherited by Obama have peaked and are on the way down. There is no question about which party is more fiscally responsible. It takes a lot of blind party loyalty to distort this clear picture.

Top
#30367 - 03/16/13 09:14 AM Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering [Re: Bee]
saltydog Offline


Registered: 02/03/11
Posts: 1553
Loc: Valley Ford CA!!!!
Originally Posted By: Bee
Originally Posted By: saltydog
SO, how about that Whitney Portal Road clearing budget debacle, huh?


Did I miss something? I don't recall the Portal Road mentioned in the 'sequestering' cutbacks...Well, then again, I don't recall most of the last two pages of this thread as part of the 'consequences' of sequestering, either.


Exactly.
_________________________
Wherever you go, there you are.
SPOTMe!

Top
#30369 - 03/16/13 10:51 AM Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering [Re: saltydog]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1116
Loc: NorCal
Salty, understanding the historical reasons for our dramatic rise in national debt since 1980 is essential to understanding what to do about it. Those who don't understand history are doomed to repeat it.

Now that the crisis seems to have peaked, whatever we do should be gradual, and sequester is a knee jerk. The TARP bailouts that Bush Jr started were necessary, and the program did it's job. Obama's loans to GM kept the auto industry from imploding and are being repaid. Extended unemployment payouts are declining, and the stimulus spending is phasing out. Those emergency measures were necessary to avoid a repeat of the Great Depression. That's why there are times when deficit spending is necessary. In my opinion, Reagan was justified for some of his deficit spending to get us out of the post-Vietnam stagflation of the 70's from the oil crises. Bush Jr was justified for priming the pump following 911. These measures should only go on for a couple of years, more or less, and then when the private sector recovers, the debt should be paid down to get ready for the next crisis. But no, they ran up debt like a drunken sailor on leave. Now we're at a tipping point with very little room for emergency measures.

Our economy just suffered a heart attack in 2007, the triple bypass surgery was successful, but we're not quite ready for the Boston marathon just yet. Let's address the debt in a gradual and balanced manner without tying one hand behind our back. This was all debated in the last election. The party that lost should not be obstructing progress because they control one half of one half of the government. Do they have to be completely removed from power to get things done? That's what happened in California state government. I think they are afraid Obama will be successful if he's allow to follow what has obviously worked in the past.

Our system depends on two healthy parties with competing ideas to arrive at the best solutions to our problems. The minority leader and other Republicans have openly declared that opposing Obama is their highest priority. That attitude has no place in our system and those people need to be removed from power or the entire party needs to grow up.


Edited by SierraNevada (03/16/13 11:07 AM)

Top
Page 8 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >