What happens to the Republicans if/when the stimulus package works?

[Thunder]

What will happen to the Republicans if/when the stimulus package works? Will they become a long term minority party? Will they go exstinct?

[Just thinking]

There are so many ways one can spin the outcome of the effects of the Stimulus Package that whether or not it "succeeds" will be open to debate to the point of it depending on which side of the isle you're on. So basically it may boil down to whether or not the economy has sufficiently recovered that will determine the fate of the Republican (and Democratic) parties. If the economy is still in bad shape by November of 2010, the Republicans will likely gain control of one or both houses of congress. If it's still poor by 2012, or not above 10,000 on the Dow, President Obama will be a single term president. If things improve by 2010, the Dems will remain in control and Obama will likely have a second term. The economy is where it all resides.

BTW, for what it's worth, I think that the Democrats have a much greater chance of having catastrophic losses at the polls if the Stimulus Package fails than the Republicans do if it succeeds.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

I'd have to agree with your comment. The stimulus package has left a bad taste in my mouth and I'm trying to look at the whole thing objectively. Inevitably the spin machine is gonna come out and we're going to have to wade through tons of ******** just hoping to figure out what it did right.

BTW, for what it's worth, I think that the Democrats have a much greater chance of having catastrophic losses at the polls if the Stimulus Package fails than the Republicans do if it succeeds.

This was a huge risk on the part of the Democrats. If Obama's policies fail they're looking at massive losses in the next four years at least. If the stimulus package works then the Republicans will either lose a few more seats or things will largely remain as is.

[Mitchell314]

If it does (I doubt it, but it's still possible), then it succeeds. I don't think it change peoples views drastically. Anyways, it would take much more than a single large failure to knock down such a large party. For one, if the economy does up swing with the package, not everybody will think it's because the stimulus, and for good reasons.

[Texas]

What will happen to the Republicans if/when the stimulus package works? Will they become a long term minority party? Will they go exstinct?
The best thing Obama can do is shut up for a while. Every one of his public speeches to date on the economy has sent the markets into a tailspin. It lost 251 points today and that makes it the lowest level in 11 years. The market has lost 11% since his inauguration. On Jan 20th the Dow was at 7949 it closed today at 7114. That is a drop of 843 points in his first month in office.
I watched his speech on CNBC this morning at the governors conference. Before the speech the market as 100 points up and after the speech started the Dow went steadily down to -70 by the end and kept going down the rest of the day. He is failing badly when it comes to instilling confidence.

[Mitchell314]

The best thing Obama can do is shut up for a while. Every one of his public speeches to date on the economy has sent the markets into a tailspin. It lost 251 points today and that makes it the lowest level in 11 years. The market has lost 11% since his inauguration. On Jan 20th the Dow was at 7949 it closed today at 7114. That is a drop of 843 points in his first month in office.
I watched his speech on CNBC this morning at the governors conference. Before the speech the market as 100 points up and after the speech started the Dow went steadily down to -70 by the end and kept going down the rest of the day. He is failing badly when it comes to instilling confidence.

I disagree with the stimulus, but blaming (if that's what you're getting at) Obama's speeches for any drops in the market is a tad bit overdone. The market is going down anyways.

[BeAChooser]

The economy is where it all resides.

Unless, of course, there is a major terrorist attack that could have been prevented.

[BeAChooser]

By the way, I'm not sure why everyone is calling it the "stimulus" package since even the Obama administration has abandoned that misnomer. :D

[Just thinking]

Unless, of course, there is a major terrorist attack that could have been prevented.

That would be the equivalent of dropping an atomic bomb on the Democrats. Let's hope that scenario is one we will never see the outcome of.

[Texas]

I disagree with the stimulus, but blaming (if that's what you're getting at) Obama's speeches for any drops in the market is a tad bit overdone. The market is going down anyways.I disagree. The market is at the mercy of what the government decides to do. There was a trigger in Obama's speech that sent the market from a respectable gain to an large loss. He started out touting how much he is spending and that it is absolutely necessary to do so. Had he stopped there he may have been ok BUT he then segued into how his new budget is going to begin to slash the deficit from 1.3 trillion to 500 billion by the end of his first term.

That just so happens to come to an 800 billion dollar reduction that is almost exactly the costs of the stimulus package and doesn't even address the bank bailout program that is much larger. The only way to do that is to either massively slash spending or massive tax increases and Democrats are not about to slash spending. That has been Obama's problem all along, he doesn't realise that what he says as president, especially now, moves the financial markets in big ways. He should have left the deficit talk alone until he sees if his stimulus and bank fix programs start working because he is more likely than not going to have to come back with another massive injection of capital into the Banking system

[Mitchell314]

I disagree. The market is at the mercy of what the government decides to do. There was a trigger in Obama's speech that sent the market from a respectable gain to an large loss. He started out touting how much he is spending and that it is absolutely necessary to do so. Had he stopped there he may have been ok BUT he then segued into how his new budget is going to begin to slash the deficit from 1.3 trillion to 500 billion by the end of his first term.

That just so happens to come to an 800 billion dollar reduction that is almost exactly the costs of the stimulus package and doesn't even address the bank bailout program that is much larger. The only way to do that is to either massively slash spending or massive tax increases and Democrats are not about to slash spending. That has been Obama's problem all along, he doesn't realise that what he says as president, especially now, moves the financial markets in big ways. He should have left the deficit talk alone until he sees if his stimulus and bank fix programs start working because he is more likely than not going to have to come back with another massive injection of capital into the Banking system

Correlation doesn't imply causation. Especially when the process in question is doing what it has been doing for the recent past.

[Just thinking]

Correlation doesn't imply causation.

This is most certainly true ... but it doesn't rule it out either.

Especially when the process in question is doing what it has been doing for the recent past.

The recent past has had a number of talking points come out from the Democrats (not just President Obama) and I have on more than one occasion seen the little corner market indicator on my TV screen show the numbers head south when almost anyone from the present administration makes comments. Is it just my imagination? Maybe ...

Plus, let's not forget that a 250 point drop today is much more serious than it was when the Dow was at 10,000.

[Mitchell314]

This is most certainly true ... but it doesn't rule it out either....

The burden of proof is on the claim that Obama is somehow responsible in causing these drops. And so far, I do not see much proof.


The recent past has had a number of talking points come out from the Democrats (not just President Obama) and I have on more than one occasion seen the little corner market indicator on my TV screen show the numbers head south when almost anyone from the present administration makes comments. Is it just my imagination? Maybe ...

Conformation Bias? You'd have to be half crazy to think that talking points from Democratic politicians are not common :). And I'm a democrat myself. The same with the drops in the market. So it is unreasonable to assume that it is likely the coincide just out of chance because of the frequency?


Plus, let's not forget that a 250 point drop today is much more serious than it was when the Dow was at 10,000.

The gravity of the issue has little to do with the veracity of the said statements.

[Tricky]

Voters have notoriously short memories. Elections are determined by what happens two months before the election. Obama was in a tight race with McCain until a "series of unfortunate events", like the economy cratering and Sara Palin being parodied by Tina Fey happened.

If the economy recovers, everyone will forget or argue over why. The coming year or two are the "lost days" as far as the next national elections are concerned. Does anybody remember that the Enron and other business collapses happened in GW Bush's first year of his first term? By the time re-election time came, it was lost in other stuff, particularly 9-11 and Iraq. Old news.

[Texas]

The burden of proof is on the claim that Obama is somehow responsible in causing these drops. And so far, I do not see much proof.

.
This is a prime example of what I was saying:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/23/news/economy/obama_promise_deficit/index.htm



NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- President Obama has set a very public and very tough challenge for himself: To cut the annual 2013 deficit in half and the finacial markets know it.

It won't be easy.

Obama's goal would produce a deficit that's still higher than the deficit of $455 billion in 2008, but it's far less than the $1 trillion-plus deficits that budget experts are projecting for each of the next several years if nothing changes.

His ever increasing promises to both spend us out of recession and do it while cutting the deficit in half flies in the face of reality and grade school math.

[Merko]

I think about 30% of the electorate are hard-core Republicans who would buy any GOP spin and who wouldn't care even if the economy was recovering in 2010 or in good shape in 2012. But I also think there is a big group of at least 30% who do care. Most of these voted with the Democrats last year already, but they could certainly pick up some more here, especially in rural areas where people tend to change their opinions more slowly.

The interesting thing is what will happen to banks now. Apparently the government is starting a review of the largest 20 banks. If they quickly move in and take over the unsustainable banks, and thereby credibly declare the surviving banks sound, they could put an end to the destructive force that is causing this mess. If they don't, the stimulus is akin to trying to repair a house while the bulldozer is still driving around and tearing it down.

So far they've sent mixed signals about what they will do here. But if they in fact act decisively, that is actually a good strategy. The meme 'speak softly and carry a big stick' is very applicable to this issue!

[Whiplash]

This poll is biased, IMO. It leaves out the obivious missing option. That being that The stimulus package will not succeed, and the Democrats will suffer because of it. How can you miss this possibility? Does it not even occur to you?

If you want to say that "The stimulus package will not succeed." covers that, I would say that was a bit disingenious. At the very least I could see my suggestion being a further, new additional choice below "The stimulus package will not succeed.".

[Just thinking]

The burden of proof is on the claim that Obama is somehow responsible in causing these drops. And so far, I do not see much proof.

If I had a nickle every time Obama used the words "economic catastrophe" ...

There is such a thing as talking down the market you know. Anyway, Obama is expected again to speak today regarding matters of the economy, let's see what happens with regard to what he says.

[Just thinking]

This poll is biased, IMO. It leaves out the obivious missing option. That being that The stimulus package will not succeed, and the Democrats will suffer because of it. How can you miss this possibility? Does it not even occur to you?

Sometimes what is not said can speak louder than what is.

(PS: I noted that too, right off the bat.)

[The Painter]

The stimulus package will work as well as the bank and Wall St. bailouts have worked. We can all see how good the banks and Wall St. are doing, can't we?

[Meadmaker]

The remaining congressional Republicans are mostly in safe seats. They won't suffer much further electoral loss no matter what happens. However, if the economy is still in dire straits when the next election rolls around, they will recover a lot of ground.

And that seems appropriate to me. Obama is throwing a gazillion dollars of your money at the problem. If it doesn't work, he and his party ought not be rewarded by being allowed to remain in office.

Of course, one problem will be determining whether "the stimulus works". Economics is one field where experimentation is pretty difficult. (For that reason, I think it's largely pseudoscience.) No matter what happens, Democrats will say it would have been worse without the stimulus, and Republicans will say it would have been better, and no one will be able to prove them wrong.

[Mitchell314]

If I had a nickle every time Obama used the words "economic catastrophe" ...

There is such a thing as talking down the market you know. Anyway, Obama is expected again to speak today regarding matters of the economy, let's see what happens with regard to what he says.

I'll make a guess: it'll go down.
I'll make a hypothetical guess: It would go down even if he didn't give a speech.

I'm sure somebody would complain even if it did go up.

[TriskettheKid]

His ever increasing promises to both spend us out of recession and do it while cutting the deficit in half flies in the face of reality and grade school math.

No, it doesn't.

Let's say current deficit spending is $1 trillion on a budget of $3 trillion. He cuts back some bloated budget sink holes, to the tune of, let's say, $750 billion. He then spends an additional $250 billion on stimulus or other spending means to get us out of the recession.

And there you go! He just cut deficit spending in half, while spending $250 billion.

Doesn't exactly fly in the face of reality or grade school math.

[tomwaits]

On Planet X a stimulus package involves a mandatory shot of viagra.

[BeAChooser]

Let's say current deficit spending is $1 trillion on a budget of $3 trillion.

Except that deficit spending wasn't $1 trillion before he and the democrat's passed their illadvised $350 billion wallstreet/bank bill and their $1 trillion dollar stimulus/recovery/pork bill. Last year's deficit was $454 billion. The deficit this year is projected to be about $1.3 trillion. Now if he really wants to cut the deficit in half like he claimed, then he needs to get the deficit down to $227 billion, half of what he inherited. But don't hold your breath. I'm fully expecting to see trillion dollar deficits for years to come as he and top democrats try to turn America into a socialist nirvana. :rolleyes:

[Molinaro]

Except that deficit spending wasn't $1 trillion before he and the democrat's passed their illadvised $350 billion wallstreet/bank bill and their $1 trillion dollar stimulus/recovery/pork bill. Last year's deficit was $454 billion. The deficit this year is projected to be about $1.3 trillion. Now if he really wants to cut the deficit in half like he claimed, then he needs to get the deficit down to $227 billion, half of what he inherited. But don't hold your breath. I'm fully expecting to see trillion dollar deficits for years to come as he and top democrats try to turn America into a socialist nirvana. :rolleyes:

This administration has inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit -- the largest in our nation's history -- and our investments to rescue our economy will add to that deficit in the short term," Obama said Monday

That $1.3 trillion number is not something Obama created. It's the true deficit that was inherited. If you were to bother researching the topic before commenting you would see that it's the $1.3 trillion number that he intends to cut in half by the end of his 1st term.

[Meadmaker]

That $1.3 trillion number is not something Obama created. It's the true deficit that was inherited. If you were to bother researching the topic before commenting you would see that it's the $1.3 trillion number that he intends to cut in half by the end of his 1st term.

And I don't know whether he ought to get pats on the back for cutting it in half, down to "only" 650 billion, which is projected to be 3% of GDP.

If the plan is succcessful, will I find myself saying, "Congratulations, Barack, you did better than George W. Bush!"

If so, be certain that it falls into the category of "damning with faint praise".


Have we become so accustomed to deficit spending that we would commend someone for a goal of being the second worst President ever? (To be fair, by some measures, Reagan would be worse.) On the other hand, if he fails to achieve even that pathetic goal, then it will be clear that his plan was an utter failure.

[BeAChooser]

That $1.3 trillion number is not something Obama created. It's the true deficit that was inherited.

The official deficit at the end of FY 2008 was $454 billion dollars. Look it up. If you want to argue that the deficit was $1.3 trillion going into Obama's term, then thanks to the spending bills passed since he took office, the deficit now has to be well over that amount. Right?

The truth is that either his $1.3 trillion dollar figure INCLUDES hundreds of billions in stimulus spending that Obama's administration promoted and got passed SINCE he took office (as well as hundreds of billions of dollars that Bush got passed in TARP but that Obama will get to spend if he chooses, as well as hundreds of billions in TARP that was spent under Bush but that Obama as a senator approved) or he grossly understates the current projected FY2009 deficit (we might be actually seeing one that tops $2 TRILLION). .

The truth is that Obama is just blaming Bush (because that's what his constituency wants to hear) and lying to the public about who is really responsible for the growth in spending (because he knows the mainstream media will help him get away with it). The truth is that Obama has already made a mockery of his campaign promises to increase transparency, not sign legislation that hasn't even been read and eliminate earmarks.

The truth is that Obama's promise to halve the deficit to the figure he's cited ($533 billion) over the next four years would still leave the deficit significantly larger than it was in FY2008. The truth is that Obama is overseeing the largest expansion of government in the history of this country ... based on fear mongering about a recession that was (before he got involved) no larger than the one in 1981-82.

The truth is that his claims of "fiscal responsibility" are nothing short of lies. The truth is that his announced solution to the deficit ... raising taxes ... is only going to damage the economy even further. The truth is that the only way to get control of the deficit is to cut overall spending. And the sad truth is that with democrats controlling congress with an essentially filibuster proof senate (thanks to a couple RINOs) you will not see overall spending cut.

The truth is that socialism has arrived.

The truth is that socialism doesn't work all that well.

[Meadmaker]

The truth is that...

The truth is that you wouldn't know the truth if it hit you in the face.


Without factoring in any of Obama's plans, the Bush administration projected the budget deficit for this fiscal year to be 1.3 trillion dollars. However, if you factored in social security and post office surpluses that are projected for this year, the total deficit drops to about 1.1 trillion.

That did include the "Democratic" :rolleyes: bailout bill.


Will Obama's policies make it worse? So far, I'm not optimistic, but I guess we'll find out.

[PogoPedant]

This poll is biased, IMO. It leaves out the obivious missing option. That being that The stimulus package will not succeed, and the Democrats will suffer because of it. How can you miss this possibility? Does it not even occur to you?

If you want to say that "The stimulus package will not succeed." covers that, I would say that was a bit disingenious. At the very least I could see my suggestion being a further, new additional choice below "The stimulus package will not succeed.".

Since the question is about what will happen to the Republicans, why would you answer what is happening to the Democrats?

[Meadmaker]

Ahh memories....

I turn my mind way back to 1993. Rush Limbaugh was still marginally fresh on the radio as a new voice, and I found him somewhat entertaining. Bill Clinton had just taken office, and deficit spending was on everyone's mind. Schools were holding bake sales and sending the money to the Treasury to pay down the debt. (For you youngsters: no kidding. This really happened. Rush mocked this by suggesting that a listener whose wife would not let him subscribe to the Limbaugh letter hold a bake sale to raise the funds. The event drew many thousands of people, and raised more than enough money for the subscription.)

Anyway, I can still hear Rush's voice, discussing the Clinton tax proposals, saying that it was impossible to tax your way out of a deficit. The Clinton years would bring 200 billion dollar deficits for years to come. No end in sight of deficit spending.

And yet....it didn't happen. Clinton raised taxes and, through some way that no one at the Heritage Foundation could understand....the deficit vanished. Gone. Eliminated. Even as government spending grew, the deficit was replaced by a surplus.

How oh how could this possibly be? Raise taxes and actually lower the deficit? IMPOSSIBLE! And yet, our history books say it happened. Presumably, the liberals got hold of the history books and printed their lies all over them.

Will Obama's plan reduce the deficit? I doubt it. In my humble opinion, he is off to a very bad start. I'll cut him a little bit of slack because the situation he inherited was a whole heck of a lot worse than what Clinton inherited, but I, for one, will expect to see some progress on the deficit if he wants my support in 2012, and he'll have to convince me that it is a priority to actually do something about it, rather than just spout slogans. Fiscal responsibility is much easier to talk about than to do. Heck, even Republicans can talk about it. It's their record that shows the talk to be a fraud.

The OP asked about "the stimulus package", but that is just one part of a plan whose details we have yet to see. We know there are tax proposals in the works, and there is the ordinary annual budget to present. For my part, if it works, and there is progress, I'll vote for him again. If not....I'm not sure. There aren't a lot of politicians out there with a credible record on fiscal responsibility.

[Molinaro]

The official deficit at the end of FY 2008 was $454 billion dollars. Look it up. If you want to argue that the deficit was $1.3 trillion going into Obama's term, then thanks to the spending bills passed since he took office, the deficit now has to be well over that amount. Right?



The official number you have quoted is the result of the kind of accounting hocus pocus that Obama said he will end. That number is not the real deficit and when you undo the fact that the cost of the war in Iraq and other things were left out you get the real deficit of $1.3 trillion -- inherited from Bush.

How can you keep going on without even bothering to find out what Obama has said?

[geni]

Unless, of course, there is a major terrorist attack that could have been prevented.

About the only goverment that has caused issues for is the spanish one and that isn't really comparible to the US.

[Meadmaker]

The official number you have quoted is the result of the kind of accounting hocus pocus that Obama said he will end. That number is not the real deficit ...

Actually...it is. Fiscal year 2008 is over and the deficit, the real one, was indeed 454 billion dollars. I believe it ended in October, but I could be wrong about that. (ETA: Looked it up. FY 2009 began October 1, 2008) In other words, no TARP included. We are currently in FY 2009, and, based on the programs in place at the end of Bush's term, and using budgets based on those passed during the Bush years, the deficit was projected to be 1.3 trillion (based on a report prepared January 7), but the combined SS and Post Office surpluses were projected to be about 200 billion, so the net deficit was expected to be 1.1. trillion.

Now there are lots and lots of assumptions and alternatives that could make it go up down and sideways all over the place, but last year's deficit was indeed 454 billion, without a whole lot of monkey business with the numbers.

[linusrichard]

Unless, of course, there is a major terrorist attack that could have been prevented.

That would be the equivalent of dropping an atomic bomb on the Democrats. Let's hope that scenario is one we will never see the outcome of.

I don't know, last time there was a major terrorist attack that could have been prevented, the president's approval ratings shot up to 90.

[JihadJane]

In the woowoo dreamworld where the package could produce recovery the Republicans would benefit because the world would be awe-struck at the way their train wreck collapsing economy mirage enabled them to orchestrate such a huge transfer of wealth upwards without having to subject the public to decades of unnecessary suffering, deprivation and debt.

[BeAChooser]

Clinton raised taxes and, through some way that no one at the Heritage Foundation could understand....the deficit vanished. Gone. Eliminated. Even as government spending grew, the deficit was replaced by a surplus.

How oh how could this possibly be? Raise taxes and actually lower the deficit? IMPOSSIBLE! And yet, our history books say it happened. Presumably, the liberals got hold of the history books and printed their lies all over them.


Are you really this ill informed, Meadmaker?

First of all, the ACTUAL US National Debt went UP every single year during the Clinton era. Don't believe me? See http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16/ . It links data from http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np , which is a site linked by the US Treasury website at http://www.ustreas.gov , to arrive at the following figures:

FY1993 $4.411 trillion
FY1994 $4.692 trillion, deficit = $281 billion
FY1995 $4.973 trillion, deficit = $281 billion
FY1996 $5.225 trillion, deficit = $250 billion
FY1997 $5.413 trillion, deficit = $188 billion
FY1998 $5.526 trillion, deficit = $113 billion
FY1999 $5.656 trillion, deficit = $130 billion
FY2000 $5.674 trillion, deficit = $18 billion
FY2001 $5.807 trillion, deficit = $133 billion

Now granted, the deficit went down to only $18 billion one year, but that was NOT a surplus. There was NO surplus. Furthermore, note that Clinton, liar that he was, actually claimed to have generated a surplus totaling $360 billion the last three years in office. Don't believe me?

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/


President Clinton announces another record budget surplus

From CNN White House Correspondent Kelly Wallace

September 27, 2000

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion. ... snip ... the president explained, the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years -- $223 billion this year alone. This represents, Clinton said, "the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States."


We all know (or should know by now) that Clinton was a consummate liar. And that the mainstream media covered for him (and still do) on almost every occasion. Don't make yourself one by regurgitating their lies so willingly. Be a skeptic. What Clinton did was pay down the public debt, NOT the national debt. And there's a difference. He paid down the public debt by borrowing money in the form of intergovernmental holdings ... which is included in the national debt. In essence, he hid the problem. And the media helped him do it.

Second, note that the actual deficit went back up in FY2002 ... which was also a year based on Clinton's budget proposals, not Bush's. So in fact, Bush inherited a deficit of $133 billion from Clinton. Not quite the picture the democrat-friendly media falsely present to the unwashed masses.

Third, you will note that the deficit in FY1994 and FY1995 was $281 billion dollars. The deficit only began to fall in FY1996 and thereafter. Now what was different about the later years from the first two? Well to begin with, republicans took control of congress away from the democrats in January 1995. So FY1996 was the first year based on their budgeting. And balancing the budget was the heart of Republican fiscal policy during that time. Remember the government shutdown in late 1995? That was about balancing the budget and in the end President Clinton folded. Republicans retained control of congress, even if by a slim margin, until after Clinton left office, which explains why the deficit continued to fall during Clinton's term. Clinton just went along for the ride because he was always good at going whichever way the wind seemed to be blowing at the time.

Also, Clinton benefited from a huge peace dividend due to the fall of the USSR. Thirty-five percent of deficit reduction during that period can be attributed to a reduction in military spending ... a gutting which it should be noted came back to bite us big time a few years later during Bush's term. Clinton also enjoyed a very strong economy due to the internet/tech boom. Thirty-two percent of the deficit reduction came from increased revenue, enhanced by tax cuts like the capital gains tax cut in 1997. In fact, a business-friendly republican congress had a lot to do with that economic boom, mainly because it left business alone and let the free market do what it does best. Note that Clinton's tax increases, that you mention, took place in 1993 ... and the deficit did not decrease at all as a result.

Bush, on the other hand, inherited a recession that started while Clinton was still in office due to the collapse of that internet/tech boom; had to deal with the effects of 9/11 (which Clinton helped happen) on the economy, as well as several corporate scandals; was faced with the cost of fighting the War on Terror (which democrats may foolishly think is over); and finally had to address the logical end result of a mortgage/credit crisis whose seeds were clearly planted during the Clinton years with policies that were defended by democrats when republicans later wanted to change them and whose severity was increased due to government interference and the doom and gloom statements of politicians such as Obama. In short, you need to compares apples and apples, not apples and watermelons, Meadmaker.

[Mitchell314]

snip ... We all know (or should know by now) that Clinton was a consummate liar. And that the mainstream media covered for him (and still do) on almost every occasion. Don't make yourself one by regurgitating their lies so willingly. Be a skeptic. ... snip

I'm not taking a side on this, but this does border dangerously close too woo (The media is in on some conspiracy? Come on :rolleyes:). Bringing this back to the original topic somebody makes a miscalculation and the opposing side makes it into a plot to ruin the world. It doesn't matter if it's democrat -> republican or republican -> democrat.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Does anybody remember that the Enron and other business collapses happened in GW Bush's first year of his first term?

I remember that their scam saw the light of day in the first year of Bush's first term but the majority of thier shenanigans were conducted while Clinton was in office.

[Meadmaker]

What Clinton did was pay down the public debt, NOT the national debt. And there's a difference. He paid down the public debt by borrowing money in the form of intergovernmental holdings

If you want to include intergovernmental holdings....George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan look much, much, worse. If you want to see how bad things really are, throw in those promises made to the future for which there are no funds available. I have sometimes seen that called the "gross debt". That's truly frightening.

Second, note that the actual deficit went back up in FY2002 ... which was also a year based on Clinton's budget proposals, not Bush's.

Excuse me?

I had started to type an explanation, but I would love to hear yours, instead.
(dangit. Can't find popcorn smiley)

Now what was different about the later years from the first two? Well to begin with, republicans took control of congress away from the democrats in January 1995.

I actually agree with you on this one. Count me in on divided government.



Also, Clinton benefited from a huge peace dividend due ...

:s2: Everything good that happened was because of our guy and everything bad was because of your guy, no matter who was in office at the time. We'll hear the same spin next election. Fortuntately, 51% of the voters get that the party in power actually does have the ability to do something, and so they tend to reward success and punish failure. So, again to answer the OP, if Obama's economic policies work, he and his buddies will stay in office. If not, throw the bums out, even though they will say it wasn't their fault because everything sucked when they came in.

[Diagoras]

Remember the Whig Party?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Actually...it is. Fiscal year 2008 is over and the deficit, the real one, was indeed 454 billion dollars.

Does that include the emergency spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

[Meadmaker]

Does that include the emergency spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

As far as I could tell, yes. The numbers came from the Congressional Budget Office, not the White House Budget Office, and they described total revenue and total outlays. I would be surprised if the CBO was hiding anything for GWB. I know that in projecting forward, they mentioned possible variation in war spending as one of the major areas of uncertainty in projecting FY2009 and 2010 budgets, so it seems fairly clear to that the war spending was included.

ETA: As best I can tell, the Iraq spending is included in backward looking deficit numbers. I think the shenannigans came from Bush when he would submit a budget, and base his estimate of future deficits on that budget, but the budget wouldn't include war spending. Later, that money would be appropriated using a separate supplemental appropriation bill. However, at the end of the year, looking backward, all spending was still included.

[BeAChooser]

I'm not taking a side on this, but this does border dangerously close too woo

You don't think the mainstream media covered for Clinton? Where in the world were you during the Clinton years? I can name story after story that the mainstream media either completely ignored or minimized. :D

[TriskettheKid]

You don't think the mainstream media covered for Clinton? Where in the world were you during the Clinton years? I can name story after story that the mainstream media either completely ignored or minimized. :D

Because nothing says "the media was in Bill Clinton's pocket" like the ****-storm of lunacy that was the media coverage of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

[BeAChooser]

If you want to include intergovernmental holdings

It isn't a matter of *wanting*. The proper calculation of national debt includes that item. So clearly Clinton and the media lied in claiming the national debt went down the last 3 years of Clinton's term. And they apparently fooled you. The treasury department's own website proves that. And if the national debt went up instead (which it did), then by definition we can't have had a surplus those three years.

George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan look much, much, worse.

You keep wanting to change the playing field, Meadmaker. For someone who claims to be impartial, you seem almost desperate to defend Obama and Clinton on various threads ... while attacking every republican you can name. Call me a skeptic, but ... :)

But ok, let's look at what happened to the national debt during the Reagan and Bush years. Yes, the national debt went up during the Reagan years ... by about 1.6 trillion dollars overall (less than what Obama will add to the debt this year via his stimulus package and the various new social spending programs that he's just promised). During Reagan's years, it went up in large part because democrats did not follow through with the spending cuts they'd promised on social programs when he got them to massively cut taxes. But the economy also exploded during that time ... precisely because he cut taxes and because he reduced government interference in business. These structural changes that Reagan introduced continued to stimulate growth of the economy long after he left office. And let's also note that during Reagan's term we fought and won the cold war, all but defeating the Soviet Union. That was a very expensive effort but it was also a necessary one (unless you'd like to argue we could have peacefully and safely coexisted with the Evil Empire forever). Clinton, on the other hand, greatly benefited from that defeat via the peace dividend. Reagan also brought us out of the awful stagflation that characterized the Carter years. Clinton benefited from that too. And Reagan weathered what was, until now, the longest and deepest recession since the 30's. Clinton waited to start his recession until just before he left office. ;) So pardon me if I don't apologize for Reagan's economic policies. :D

As for Bush, yes, both Jr and Sr have increased the national debt. Too much compassionate conservatism. Too much trying to outdo democrats when it comes to spending. And in the case of the senior ... raising taxes when he promised no taxes.

The bottom line is that Obama has promised us change. But it looks like what we will get is just another big round of increases in the national debt through a combination of massive increases in social spending and policies that will lengthen recessions and hamper economic growth and productivity. Let's just hope we don't have to fight a new war on top of that.


Quote:
Second, note that the actual deficit went back up in FY2002 ... which was also a year based on Clinton's budget proposals, not Bush's.

Excuse me?

I had started to type an explanation, but I would love to hear yours, instead.


My explanation. Simple. FY2002 was a typo. I obviously meant FY2001 since that's what the data I posted showed was the year the deficit went back up. But I guess you couldn't figure that out. :rolleyes:

Count me in on divided government.

Well we don't really have one now. Democrats not only control both houses, but the Senate is essentially filibuster proof.


Quote:
Also, Clinton benefited from a huge peace dividend due ...

Everything good that happened was because of our guy and everything bad was because of your guy, no matter who was in office at the time.

Whether you'll admit it or not, Clinton DID benefit from a huge peace dividend. Numerous sources will tell you that about 35% of the reduction in the deficit during his term was due to cuts in military spending that the collapse of the Soviet Union made possible.

[BeAChooser]

Because nothing says "the media was in Bill Clinton's pocket" like the ****-storm of lunacy that was the media coverage of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

You overlook the fact that Monica made it possible for Clinton and the media to for the most part ignore ChinaGate, CampaignFinanceGate, TravelGate, FileGate, Emailgate, RapeGate and the curious circumstances surrounding the deaths of Ron Brown and Vince Foster. Like I said, I could name story after story that the mainstream media either totally ignored, minimized or distorted in the interest of protecting Clinton and the DNC from the sorbid details of THOSE scandals. Thanks to them, you probably think it was all about Monica and some BJs. :rolleyes:

But we are getting off topic so I'll leave it at that. You will think what you will think. Probably in large part based on what the mainstream media told you to think. ;)

[TriskettheKid]

You overlook the fact that Monica made it possible for Clinton and the media to for the most part ignore ChinaGate, CampaignFinanceGate, TravelGate, FileGate, Emailgate, RapeGate and the curious circumstances surrounding the deaths of Ron Brown and Vince Foster. Like I said, I could name story after story that the mainstream media either totally ignored, minimized or distorted in the interest of protecting Clinton and the DNC from the sorbid details of THOSE scandals. Thanks to them, you probably think it was all about Monica and some BJs. :rolleyes:

But we are getting off topic so I'll leave it at that. You will think what you will think. Probably in large part based on what the mainstream media told you to think. ;)

Aren't you forgetting someone?

Socks.

[Meadmaker]

My explanation. Simple. FY2002 was a typo. I obviously meant FY2001 since that's what the data I posted showed was the year the deficit went back up. But I guess you couldn't figure that out. :rolleyes:


Sorry, I read what you wrote. My mistake.

But, well, it wouldn't be any more outrageous than the rest of what you wrote. As for the increased deficit in FY2001...let's see, hmmm...that would run from October 1, 2000 to October 1, 2001. Were there any changes that would affect the deficit in that period. Changes in tax policy....maybe? Anything?

Of course, we don't really have to look it up. The deficit went up. That's bad. Thererfore, it's the Democrats' fault. That's all anyone really needs to know.

[BeAChooser]

As for the increased deficit in FY2001...let's see, hmmm...that would run from October 1, 2000 to October 1, 2001. Were there any changes that would affect the deficit in that period. Changes in tax policy....maybe?

Bush didn't move into the Whitehouse until late January of 2001. But between February 1 and October 1, 2001, he did get a major tax cut (the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act) through Congress. But of course, the provisions of that bill only took affect on January 1, 2002. So I'm sorry to report that during FY2001, the government and economy mostly operated under a budget and rules left over from the Clinton administration. And the deficit went back up. :D

[Tricky]

Bush didn't move into the Whitehouse until late January of 2001. But between February 1 and October 1, 2001, he did get a major tax cut (the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act) through Congress. But of course, the provisions of that bill only took affect on January 1, 2002. So I'm sorry to report that during FY2001, the government and economy mostly operated under a budget and rules left over from the Clinton administration. And the deficit went back up. :D

Apparently Bush must have thought that whatever Clinton did, it would continue. His first budget called for a ten-year budget surplus. As I recall, this was what was going to pay for his tax cuts.

[BeAChooser]

Apparently Bush must have thought that whatever Clinton did, it would continue.

I'm not defending Bush as bright or particularly honest when it came to economic matters. I happen to despise many of the things he did during his adminstration in that area (although the tax cuts that Obama is about to eliminate were a good idea). This exchange was about Clinton and whether he was the great economic genius someone claimed he was. :D

[Meadmaker]

But of course, the provisions of that bill only took affect on January 1, 2002.

From wikipedia:


In addition to the tax cuts implemented by the EGTRRA, it initiated a series of rebates for all taxpayers that filed a tax return for 2000. The rebate was up to a maximum of $300 for single filers with no dependents, $500 for single parents, and $600 for married couples. Anybody who paid less than their maximum rebate amount in net taxes received that amount, meaning some people who did not pay any taxes did not receive rebates. The rebates were automatic for anybody who filed their 2000 tax return on time, or filed for an extension and quickly sent a return. If an eligible person did not receive a rebate check by December 2001, then they could apply for the rebate in their 2001 tax return.[2]
(emphasis added)

Withholding rates also went into effect immediately, lowering governmental revenues.

ETA: Slightly more googling found this, (from a memo issued to Department of Agriculture Employees in the state of Kansas. Google gets strange sometimes.)


The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has issued Publication 15-T containing revised withholding rates and tables for computing the federal withholding tax deductions effective for all paychecks issued on or after July 1, 2001.

[Skeptic Ginger]

What will happen to the Republicans if/when the stimulus package works? ...I predict they won't learn a thing.

[BeAChooser]

From wikipedia:

Quote:
In addition to the tax cuts implemented by the EGTRRA, it initiated a series of rebates for all taxpayers that filed a tax return for 2000. ... snip ... If an eligible person did not receive a rebate check by December 2001, then they could apply for the rebate in their 2001 tax return.[2]
(emphasis added)


Fair enough. I guess I was wrong. Some elements of EGTRRA did get applied before 2002. But let's see how much money those 2001 rebate checks actually totaled ... over all of 2001. $36 billion according to Economics: Principles, Problems, and Policies, by Campbell R. McConnell, Stanley L. Brue, 2005.

Withholding rates also went into effect immediately, lowering governmental revenues.

First, keep in mind that even before EGTRRA was passed an economic slowdown was underway ... with a consequent impact on revenues. But what effect did EDTRRA itself have? Well, chart 5 of http://www.dallasfed.org/research/swe/2002/swe0201b.html indicates that the revenue loss from EGTRRA was about $75 billion dollars in 2001. Presumably, that includes the $36 billion above. So even subtracting this out, it would appear the deficit was already going back up given the economy and rules Bush *inherited* from Clinton.

And note chart 4 in that link. I think it is relevant to evaluating Obama's plans, which is also trying to stimulate spending to get us out of a recession. It shows that consumers did not spend the rebates and other savings right away. It didn't stimulate the economy in any immediate way. And that was with lots of optimistic talk about the economy rather than the pessimism we are hearing from all quarters now. Now we should be able to learn from the past and suspect Obama's plan to quickly stimulate the economy isn't going to work either. Right?

[Meadmaker]

So even subtracting this out, it would appear the deficit was already going back up given the economy and rules Bush *inherited* from Clinton.

Yes...sort of. Certainly the recession of 2001 was pushing the deficit up, as recessions always do. Bush's policies just made the situation worse.

There's a lot of really good information in the article you provided, by the way. I didn't realize that federal spending as a percent of GDP was lower at the end of Clinton's term than in any year since 1966. Which way did it go in the next 8 years.


Now we should be able to learn from the past and suspect Obama's plan to quickly stimulate the economy isn't going to work either. Right?

Yes, we should have learned from our mistakes. I don't think this stimulus bill will work. However, whether or not it works, I hope voters remember it at the next election. If it works, yeah Dems! If not, throw the bums out!

[Texas]

Remember the Whig Party?

Yes the GOP has been declared dead more times than the Al Qaeda number 2 leader. In 2 years Congress went from overwhelming Democrat majorities to GOP control. From 1992:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1992/nov/04/uselections2004.usa

George Bush's catastrophic defeat in yesterday's presidential election leaves the Republican coalition painstakingly assembled over more than a decade of conservative rule a wreck that will take many years to rebuild.With 36 per cent of the popular vote, Mr Bush's performance ranked among the worst of any incumbent president this century. This was partly due to Texas billionaire Ross Perot who received a disappointing return for his $60 million investment, heading for 16 per cent of the vote.

Bill Clinton was last night heading for victory across the country and among all voter categories, except religious fundamentalists. Among early results, Mr Bush lost Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan and New Jersey, big states he had to hold for any chance of success. Another big state that eluded Mr Bush was New York, and he was expected to lose Ohio.