Frontline "Ten trillion & counting"

[Dionysos]

You know, I'm not going to say Obama's the answer because it's WAY premature for anything like that(and I'm not really trying to start a debate on that here). But after watching this Frontline special, I'm reminded of just how awful Dubya was in terms of fiscal policy. I knew he sucked at asserting any sort of fiscal discipline instead of rolling with whatever his party wanted, but I had forgotten about some of his gems like when he campaigned for tax cuts while pumping up the Iraq invasion or signing Plan D into action. He makes me want to eat kittens.


If you want to watch it:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/view/

[PETA]

Congressional Budget Office figures and white house estimates on deficit comparison. If Bush was a first class fool for spending so much it's hard to consider Obama a genius for outspending him. Not suggesting you were calling Obama a savior just putting the spending estimates and actuals in perspective. As a deficit hawk I'm surprised you haven't been spitting tax... I mean tacks.

other charts: http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...art=21&ndsp=21

[Nyteshade]

Originally Posted by St. Stalin the Apathetic

Congressional Budget Office figures and white house estimates on deficit comparison. If Bush was a first class fool for spending so much it's hard to consider Obama a genius for outspending him.

Chart won't show up for me.

[PETA]

The assertions made that GW spent at ridiculous rates are all true but no one seems to mind that Obama's made Bush look like a miser.

[name change request]

you have to spend to fix things... it is going to cost to fix healthcare, education, etc etc

[johnny861]

Originally Posted by joel

you have to spend to fix things... it is going to cost to fix healthcare, education, etc etc

For things like healthcare and education, but the economy?

What I find interesting is that Republicans typically support big business with the idea that it will trickle down to the people. The Bush administration came along with this 750 billion bailout plan.

Democrats are typically supportive of the people with hope that it will trickle up to big business, yet, in this administration we are seeing another big bailout, with democrat support for helping big business and republicans taking a stance against some of these big businesses and siding with the people...

I know the above was a bit of a generalization, there are plenty of details to consider, but overall, what that says to me is this: nobody has a fucking clue as to how to fix the economy.

So I dunno if throwing a bunch more money at the problem is necessarily the answer.

[PETA]

Apparently it take four timnes the deficit spending of George Bush... the worst spender in history. Obama will spend his dollars 4 to 1 to make things 4 times better then?

It's a horseshit argument. The government is not the solution to our problems it is largely the source. Permitting private actors the room to solve our financial crisis is more effective then trying to keep the bubble inflated longer.

Permitting such spending will accomplish little more than increasing the debt you've been bitching about the last 8 years by orders of magnitude.

[name change request]

i haven't been bitching about the debt. i've bitched about Bush lying to us repeatedly and getting us involved in a bullshit war though.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by johnny861

What I find interesting is that Republicans typically support big business with the idea that it will trickle down to the people. The Bush administration came along with this 750 billion bailout plan.

The DNC Congress wrote TARP.

Supply side economics doesn't work quite that way. Your comments are a result of election year characterization of supply side that hasn't ever gone away.

Originally Posted by johnny861

Democrats are typically supportive of the people with hope that it will trickle up to big business, yet, in this administration we are seeing another big bailout, with democrat support for helping big business and republicans taking a stance against some of these big businesses and siding with the people...

Yes, there is an inversion in play. The issue that created the shift, imo, is the profound increase in government spending. People said of Obama during the election months, "can't be worse than Bush" well yes it can... four times as bad in fact.

Originally Posted by joel

i haven't been bitching about the debt. i've bitched about Bush lying to us repeatedly and getting us involved in a bullshit war though.

Disagreeing with the war - fine - reasonable people can disagree on the choice. But, Obama's protecting the wiretap program and hiring lobbyists in his administration despite promises not to do either are not lies, just necessary accomodations?

[name change request]

when we said "can't be worse than Bush" we weren't speaking about the deficit... we were talking about intelligence and the amount of lies.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by joel

when we said "can't be worse than Bush" we weren't speaking about the deficit... we were talking about intelligence and the amount of lies.

no - I mentioned that Obama would out spend Bush and replies I repeatedly got were, "can't be worse than Bush." I'll accept they didn't come from you but those were typical responses.

[HomoSexualPredator]

Originally Posted by St. Stalin the Apathetic

no - I mentioned that Obama would out spend Bush and replies I repeatedly got were, "can't be worse than Bush." I'll accept they didn't come from you but those were typical responses.

He may be outspending Bush, but he plans to address that difference and raise revenues to cover as much as he can.

[-m-]

SFO.exe buffering........

[DREX]

the difference with obama is he will raise taxes as well

instead of borrowing it from china

[PETA]

Originally Posted by HomoSexualPredator

He may be outspending Bush, but he plans to address that difference and raise revenues to cover as much as he can.

That's part of the CBO accounting afaik.

Originally Posted by DREX

the difference with obama is he will raise taxes as well

instead of borrowing it from china

Really? On whom? The Bush administration did cut tax rates at the top end and in exchange he eliminated taxes for huge numbers of Americans.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/542.html

These are lagging numbers but 32+% of American tax filers had zero tax liability in 2004.

Lastly, of the things we can do to an economy in recession with known effects, rasing taxes is it. You cannopt stimulate an economy by taking more dollars out of circulation, productive use, and giving them to the government. Take a look at Japanese attempts from the late eighties through the early 2000s for your pretty stark evidence that a tax increase (as well as colassal increases in gov't spending) is a pretty bad idea.

Obama's expenditure's fall way short of revenues and it is incredibly unlikely that any tax increases will off set his increased spending... he'd need a four fold tax revenue increase to account for a four fold deficit increase. The tax will further chill the economy, shrink the tax base and still require selling debt.