Matthew Yglesias » The Record II

Oct 3rd, 2008 at 12:44 pm

The Record II

Pat Garofalo takes a look at the debt-to-GDP ratio:

As you can see, there are basically two kinds of situations in which this ratio skyrockets — either World War II breaks out, or else you put representatives of the modern conservative movement in the White House.

Comments
72

Filed under: Bush, Economy,

72 Responses to “The Record II”

Bruce Bartlett Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 12:51 pm
There’s a perfectly understandable reason why conservatives run up the national debt: it binds the hands of future liberal governments. They cannot spend money on domestic programs, which might buy them support, because they are forced to spend increasing shares of the budget on interest payments, which go, largely, to conservatives who own the bonds. If a liberal wants to spend more, he must tax more, which frightens the conservative constituency and leads to a shift in party at the next election. Conservatives then cut taxes and the cycle starts all over again.
Jake - but not the one Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 12:54 pm
What would be interesting is total gov spending over that same time period. The difference should be income, more or less, primarily taxes (I think). If the picture looks as I think it might, it will show that so-called conservatives mortgaged their children’s inheritances to support their life style. Sort of like (or very much like) all the people who borrowed from their helocs to support a lavish life style.

Jake
kafka Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 12:54 pm
And the ratio is skyrocketing thanks to a bipartisan effort, something Matt might notice if he didn’t see the world through his partisan beer goggles.
Colonel Danite Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Sure. You may have the facts to back up your argument, but it still feels like Republicans are better stewards of the economy. ~snark~
Why oh why Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Why do Republicans hate our country?

Screwed for decades now, Mission “Starve the Beast” Accomplised.
Colonel Danite Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Sorry Kafka, the trend lines are clear. It has been under the Republican administrations of Reagan, Bush I and Bush II that we’ve seen the ratio increase. Under Clinton and even Carter, it declined.
Thorfinn Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 1:01 pm
The CBO did a study on this and found that the bulk of the increase in tax revenue during the 90s was due to non-legislative improvements in tax revenue, especially with the capital gains tax. The drop during the Bush years was partially related to legislative changes in the tax code. So there is definitely some room for Presidential performance–Clinton did not raise spending (partially due to Republican opposition) while Bush lowered taxes. But the amazing performance of the economy during the 90s–on which Clinton had limited influence–and the horrible performance of the economy during the early Bush years–over which Bush had no influence–matter a lot as well over the amount of debt you take.
Matt Foley Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Maybe you need a constitutional scholar like Grandpa Joe to remind you which branch actually approriates the dollars that get spent.

Credulous morons: those partisans who think that only one party is responsible for a) the sub-prime fiasco or b) profligate spending
Colonel Danite Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 1:12 pm
@Matt Foley. You may have a point about a bi-partisan spending spree in the 80’s but that doesn’t apply to this decade when the GOP was in control of both the executive and legislative branches. Moreover, an increase in deficits and the debt is not limited to the spending side of the equation. Rather, what the GOP has been able to do in the last 28 years is spend like drunken sailor and put the bill onto future taxpayers. That has allowed them to give away all the goodies (and more) that the Dems had offered while avoiding the pain of having to pay for them by taxing the electorate.
J Thomas Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Matt Foley, you might possibly remember that through much of this Bush administration Democrats had no chance for responsibility for the profligate spending. They had a small enough minority in both houses that they were cut out of the process.

It was all republicans doing it. Not to say that democrats wouldn’t have participated if they could. But they weren’t given the chance.

And to the extent that the Republican minority in the House successfully blocked Democratic initiatives in the last two years, we can’t blame Democrats for failing to fix the Republican destruction.

At this point, Democrats are kind of bad. Republicans are toxic waste. We need a new party to compete with the Democrats, the GOP is inadequate.
superdestroyer Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 1:15 pm
During Reagan and Bush I, ever one of those deficit budgets was approved by a Democratic lead House. The biggest reductions in the last forty years occured when the Republicans controlled Congress and would not let Clinton start any new programs.

The last six years of the Clinton Adminstration were about as close to a libertarian government the U.S. will probably ever get and yet, the progressive left wants to do the oppoiste of what was done then.

Besides, Senator Obama has said that defictis and the national debt are unimportant and that more government goodies are important.
kafka Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Sorry Kafka, the trend lines are clear. It has been under the Republican administrations of Reagan, Bush I and Bush II that we’ve seen the ratio increase. Under Clinton and even Carter, it declined.

Here’s the facts, make of them what you will.

Years of party control since 1980:

President: GOP 20, Dem 8
House: GOP 12, Dem 16
Senate: GOP 11, Dem 17

Under the constitution, Congress controls the purse strings. This is not an attempt to excuse the GOP, as you seem to think.
Harvey Lobster Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 1:18 pm
One more thing. Republicans, as being (more or less) the party of capital, whereas democrats are (more or less) the party of labor, have another motivation here. High interest rates are good for capital and bad for labor. Heavy government borrowing raises interest rates — even an allegedly progressive tax structure becomes regressive when you realize that capital recoups its loses to the income tax through higher interest rates, whereas labor is indirectly taxed through higher interest rates.

This is one factor that almost all liberal commentators leave out of discussions of deficit spending.

The right wages relentless, endless class warfare; deficit spending is an important part of that class warfare.
Matt Weiner Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Bruce Bartlett, that is the harshest indictment of conservatives that you could possibly make. Conservatives recklessly wreck the country’s fiscal health in order to make sure that liberals, who they know to be more responsible, will be too busy cleaning up the mess that they made to be able to pursue the policies they were elected to carry out. Then another irresponsible conservative government is elected to repeat the cycle.

I think it’s entirely accurate, and I praise you for your honesty. (Especially compared to the dead-enders on the thread who are trying to deny the results of the interocular trauma test.) But it’s the clearest possible demonstration that the modern conservative movement should be driven into the sea.
Matt Weiner's Bun Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Somewhere a bun is missing its Weiner.

Driving people into the sea? That’s just what the radical Muslims say about the JOOOOOOOS.
Don Williams Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Re Matt Foley’s comment “Maybe you need a constitutional scholar like Grandpa Joe to remind you which branch actually approriates the dollars that get spent.”
————
In my opinion, this is utter bullshit. Typical Republican Two-faced deceit.

The PRESIDENT is the ONLY Person in Washington with the power to halt the increase in debt. He has the veto.

Any one Representative — or even Senator — has NO power to restrain debt. If the pigs are feeding at the trough (Ronald Reagan’s Budget Director’s description of Republicans upon Reagan’s entry into office) then a Member of Congress can do NOTHING but try to ensure that his constituents get back some of what they send to Washington.

We will shortly have $11.3 Trillion in debt. Roughly $9 TRILLION of that was PERSONALLY APPROVED by the signatures of Ronald Reagan, George H Bush and George W Bush.

The next time Sarah Palin — or any other Republican — opens their goddamm mouth about “Tax And SPend ” Democrats , I hope our cowardly Democrats ask that Republican why they are LYING to the country.

Because the RECORD clearly shows the Republicans waste far more of our money — give it to the wealthy actually — than Democrats.

Yes, Democrats are now BEING FORCED to approve $1.5 Trillion in additional debt to avoid an economic disaster. But that
disaster had been DIRECTLY CAUSED by six years Republican corruption, deceit , and irresponsibility.
Colonel Danite Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 1:39 pm
@kafka

It’s not the total number of years that each party has had control over a particular branch of government. It is the correlation between the years in which they control the purse strings and the increase in the debt ratio.
Steve LaBonne Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Nothing that can’t be fixed by a hefty surtax on the rich assholes who partied while the rest of us were barely staying afloat. Hit ‘em twice- go back to Clinton’s income tax brackets (or even a bit more at the upper end) AND sock ‘em with a nice hefty wealth tax.

Let’s give the fuckers some REAL class warfare to whine about.
kafka Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 1:42 pm
It is the correlation between the years in which they control the purse strings……….

Congress controls the purse strings. It’s in the constitution. That’s why my original post was an attempt to point out the bipartisan nature of this country’s slide into fiscal oblivion.
Matt Foley Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 1:48 pm
That’s pathetic, Don.

The president has the veto, and the Congress has the override. You know these deals are cut in advance.

You excuse the branch that appropriates the money and assign no responsibility to those poor individual members of Congress (except when Rs control Congress, of course).

Consistent in nothing but partisanship.
danimal Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 1:48 pm
One thing to remember: During the 80’s, Dems had nominal control of Congress, but conservatives (including Southern Dems) had control of the budget. As the 90’s progressed, the Southern Dems switched sides or were replaced by even more conservative Republicans.
Matt Weiner Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Somewhere a bun is missing its Weiner.

The wit! I am slain!
kafka Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 1:54 pm
As the 90’s progressed, the Southern Dems switched sides or were replaced by even more conservative Republicans.

And it was during the 90’s that the budget went into surplus, so one could just as well say….. That’s the problem with idiotic partisan correlation = causation arguments. They cut both ways. I have no dog in the GOP vs. Dem fight. IMO we’ve had a one party GOPocratic political system for years, so frankly I don’t give a shit in terms of partisanship, it that makes you happy.
Jeffrey Davis Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 1:57 pm
It declined under Truman (Dem Congress), Eisenhower, (Dem Congress mostly), LBJ (Dem Congress),Kennedy (Dem Congress), Nixon (Dem Congress), Ford (Dem Congress), Carter (Dem Congress), and Clinton (Mixed).

It rose under Reagan (mixed) and the Bushes (mixed).

Modern conservatives are crazy and have decided to destroy the country.
Matt Weiner's Bun Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 1:58 pm
No no no, Matt W.

Wit would be “I am cooked!”

Or “I am boiled or grilled!”

Nobody slays hot dogs.
superdestroyer Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 2:02 pm
This graph should be plotted against the inflation rate. It looks like Carter managed to hold steady of the budget deficit by letting inflation push people into higher tax brackers and letting inflation devalue the debt while making the GDP look larger.
Colonel Danite Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 2:06 pm
@kafka

I agree that neither party is blameless in this mess. The point is that history shows us that the GOP has been more efficient at driving up deficits and our debt.

I think that the goal of any politician is to get elected and re-elected and to prepare a nice nest for himself/herself when they finally chose to retire.

The only advantage that the Dems have in recent history is that they were happy to pay for government programs by taxing people – especially people wih high incomes and wealth. They also tended to spend the money on things that help at least a few lower and middle class Americans.

The GOP has spent as much or more but has cynically funded these expenses by adding long term debt. The GOP spending priorities and tax cuts have also been targeted largely at upper income Americans and even more so at Americans who have accumulated massive wealth. That is a point that John Edwards made in his campaigns and that the media either never understood or ignored. The GOP is not really the party of people with higher incomes, though they certainly favor them. It truly is the party of inherited and accumulated wealth.
Mario Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 2:09 pm
What does it look like if you add back in the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debt that was officially put off the books but has now been brought back on. I don’t think it’s fair to blame Bush for that. The line should be higher between ‘68 and today to account for it.
emartin Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 2:16 pm
@ Matt Foley (20):

Constitution quiz: What percentage of votes in Congress does it take to override a veto?

Bonus question: Why does the budget process begin each year with the President’s budget message?
bob in fla Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Actually it is even worse than the graph suggests. When you also add in the previous bailout money already allocated but not spentm plus the $800B+ bailout/taxcuts now before Congress, & the $500B + budget deficit for the current fiscal year which just started, the ratio is well north of 80%. Granted that other countries carry a ratio about double ours currently (as the US did during the Great Depression), but those countries are not economically healthy.

Yesterday our national debt officially topped $10T. That means that by the time Bush leaves office, it will have almost doubled under his administration.

The total deficit for 1978 was $1.5T in 2008 dollars. It appears that the deficit just for this fiscal year will top our total debt of 30 years ago.

It is definitely time for change.
Why oh why Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Superdestroyer, this graph is in % of GDP.

In terms of budgetary massacre:
Reagan + Bush&Son = Nazi Germany + Japan
superdestroyer Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 2:26 pm
why oh why,

The graph is at a low point in 1980 during one of the worst economic periods in the U.S. How did the U.S. manage to have the lowest debt-to-gdp ratio in 1980? Well, first, the government did not index tax brackets to inflation in the 1970’s. Second, 1980 was after a decade of very high inflation which could have made the deficits look smaller since the interest paid on the debt was less than the inflation rate.
Matt Weiner Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 2:34 pm
How did the U.S. manage to have the lowest debt-to-gdp ratio in 1980?

Because the rate flatlined or crept down slowly for the previous six years, and then when it was barely at its lowest point Ronald Reagan came along and drove it through the roof forever. That’s the story the graph tells.
Don Williams Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Re Steve Labonne’s comment “Nothing that can’t be fixed by a hefty surtax on the rich assholes who partied while the rest of us were barely staying afloat. Hit ‘em twice- go back to Clinton’s income tax brackets (or even a bit more at the upper end) AND sock ‘em with a nice hefty wealth tax.”
————-
OBAMA SAID that he wanted to tax the wealthy — and give relief to the middle class.

Unfortunately, this Bailout shows that he is LYING to us.
Along with all the other Democratic whores.

The ONLY way to raise taxes on the wealthy was to make it PART of this Bailout — to make them pay for the bailout are the cost of protecting their wealthy and as punishment for what they let their Republican puppets and Wall Street puppets do over the past 7 years.

Democrats obviously took a PASS on that. Now they will posture and put on a hypocritical sad face when Mitch McConnell and the Republicans filibuster any attempts to raise taxes on the rich. Or even impose any regulations on Wall Street. And if there aren’t enough Republicans, whores like Joe Lieberman will cross the aisle and buttfuck us in the best “bipartisan” fashion. Just like they did in 2001.
Steve LaBonne Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 2:43 pm
I didn’t mean to imply that I had much confidence that Obama would actually do what I’m suggesting. Sadly, I have none. It’s just what I think should be done.
Don Williams Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Re bob’s comment “Yesterday our national debt officially topped $10T ”
————
The Bailout Bill raises it to $11.3 Trillion — because the Bailout consists of TWO $700 Billion Tranchs.

Both of which I think will be spent before Bush leaves in Jan 15, 2009. He and Pauli have to get the loot to their patrons while the getting’s good.

And if Pauli steps in shit legal wise, well– that’s what Presidential Pardons are for.
brewmn Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 2:49 pm
And lets not forget that Walter Mondale ran on a platform that tax increases would be necessary to begin bringing down the deficit in 1984. We was roundly ridiculed by his opponent and most of the media, and ended up losing 49 states.

There is one fundamental reason, and one only, why we have been such a deficit-ridden economy since 1980: the Republicans successful demagoguery of the tax question, and their concomitant lack of balls when it comes to cutting spending.

And you can’t blame the spending on Democrats, either. Reagan didn’t submit a balanced budget once in the eight years of his administration.

You can attempt to apportion blame for the budget deficit all you want, but it requires willful blindness to pretend that it’s due to anything other than Republican’s having the cake of railing against taxes, and their eating of it by not making the hard budget choices such fiscal austerity would require.
kafka Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 2:52 pm
The ONLY way to raise taxes on the wealthy was to make it PART of this Bailout….”

Agree. Dems had a lot of leverage here, but they were too busy helping Der Buschenfueher bailout their Wall Street buddies.
Don Williams Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Re brewmn’s comment “Republican’s having the cake of railing against taxes, and their eating of it by not making the hard budget choices such fiscal austerity would require ”
————–
Of course. IF they TAXED people when they gave huge bailouts to their Superrich patrons, the people would raise hell and throw them out of office.

But when they plunge the country into deep heavy debt, the voters shrug. Because they are Morons who don’t add up how much THEY PERSONALLY own on the debt or because they think the “other guy” will pay for it.

I’m afraid this latest screwing is turning me into a dishonest Republican — i.e., pushing me into the judgment that a People so fucking stupid deserve to be fucked and that one is an idiot to do anything other than steal as much for oneself as possible.

Civic Virtue be dammed — this Country’s gonna crash and only the crooks and thieves will have the wherewithal to survive. Or buy plane tickets to Switzerland.

Read the primary sources for the late Roman Empire in the West. The crooks fled to Turkey — and the virtuous in Italy were left holding a big bag of shit and a sudden need to learn how to speak German.

An improvement actually — the Germans were more merciful than the Emperor’s fucking tax collectors.
right Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 3:00 pm
The more relevant chart, of course, would be government interest payments as a % of GDP.
superdestroyer Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 3:02 pm
brewmn,

Tip O’Neill was famous for saying that Reagan’s budget proposals were dead on arrival. Both parties like the 1980’s because they took credit for cutting taxes without having to make tax cuts. You should also look up what Democrats were saying about Gramm-Rudmann-Hollings Balanced Budget Amendments. Also, reminder the talk about CBO scoring?

Also, if Democrats were really capable of balancing budget NYC would not have almost gone bankrupt in the 1970’s and Gray Davis would not have been voted out of office in California.

in 2008, some blue states are running massive deficits while some red states are dong fine. There is nothing inherent about Democrats that makes them balance budgets.
Don Williams Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Re superdestroyer’s comment “in 2008, some blue states are running massive deficits while some red states are dong fine.”
————-
Sure. Look at Sarah Palin’s Alaska. Gets a SHITLOAD more in FEDERAL EARMARKS Per Capita than any other state — lazy white fuckers don’t even have to pay state income tax or sales tax. PLUS a royalty check for OUR fucking oil deposits.

Meanwhile, Sarah tells us how we should make the lazy Negros get off welfare.
superdestroyer Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Don Williams

If you look at http://www.cbpp.org/1-15-08sfp.htm it would appear that California, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and New York (all very blue states) are running huge budget deficits.
Don Williams Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Re superdestroyer’s comment “it would appear that California, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and New York (all very blue states) are running huge budget deficits.”
—————
California’s problems are probably due to that irresponsible Democratic Governor they have:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081003/us_nm/us_california_loan_5
Berken Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Also, if Democrats were really capable of balancing budget NYC would not have almost gone bankrupt in the 1970’s and Gray Davis would not have been voted out of office in California.

. . . And apparently in that decade there was only one city in the United States and only one state in the Union?

Several thousand state, city, and local governments balance their budgets every year. If the parties are dealing with the issue of balancing the budget honestly (no matter how crooked they are otherwise) the job gets done. In New York City, the local pols (mostly democratic, but also Republican, let the city’s economic infrastructure deteriorate for years out of sheer incompetence. California balanced its books and prospered as much as any other state until the invention of Proposition 13 and term limits crippled the ability of legislators to do what was necessary to keep the state fiscally sound, whether by cutting expenditures or raising revenues.
Robert Waldmann Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 4:50 pm
I know what you’re up to kid. Look once could be an accident, but you just put up two graphs that look like twisted W’s drawn by a drunk with delirium tremens. That is a dirty low down subliminanable trick. Our President is not suffering from delirium tremens.
Mixner Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 5:23 pm
I agree that neither party is blameless in this mess. The point is that history shows us that the GOP has been more efficient at driving up deficits and our debt.

History most certainly does not show that. The federal budget is the product of a collaboration between the executive and legislative branches. In the overwhelming majority of years in which the budget has run a deficit, congress was controlled by the Democrats.
Njorl Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 5:48 pm
In the overwhelming majority of years in which the budget has run a deficit, congress was controlled by the Democrats.

This isn’t about D’s and R’s. It is about the modern conservative movement. During almost the entirety of the Reagan years, and most of Bush II congress was controlled by that movement. We aren’t even including Nixon, Ford or Eisenhaur in that group.

And for those fools who think Congress has more control of the budget than the president, ask Newt Gingrich if he had more control than Bill Clinton during the government shut-down.
Mixner Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 6:04 pm
This isn’t about D’s and R’s. It is about the modern conservative movement. During almost the entirety of the Reagan years, and most of Bush II congress was controlled by that movement.

Wow, so the Democrats, who controlled the House for all 8 years of Reagan’s presidency and controlled the Senate for 2 years of Reagan’s presidency, are actually part of the “modern conservative movement,” are they? Who knew?

And for those fools who think Congress has more control of the budget than the president, ask Newt Gingrich if he had more control than Bill Clinton during the government shut-down.
brewmn Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Oh, the coy, too cute-by-half ignorance of liars like Mixner, superdestroyer and kafka.

Apparently, they are too young to remember the demonization of “tax and spend” Democrats that kept Republicans in the White House for 28 of the last 40 years. And probably the only reason they lost it in 1992 was because Bush I sensibly raised some taxes during his first term.

The president sets the nation’s priorities and the budget that is the starting point for negotiation over spending and taxes.

Apparently resorting to historical fact and common sense will not persuade these trolls. so let’s try this:

If you continue to argue that Democrats share equally in the blame for chronic budget deficits during Republican administrations, you are a liar or a fool.
a Says:
October 4th, 2008 at 3:42 am
“or else you put representatives of the modern conservative movement in the White House”

This sort of schoolyard stupidity is what passes for intellectual seriousness on the Left.

Do you think that perhaps the end of the Cold War, the 2000-2002 Clinton recession and 9/11 and the subsequent war might have had anything to do with any of this?

Of course you know these things. But you cheerfully lie and lie and lie and pretend that you’re just being flippant and witty.
superdestroyer Says:
October 4th, 2008 at 9:12 am
brewmn,

The argument is not that Republicans have been fiscally conservative because they have not. HOwever, the Democratic Party has demonstrated little ability to control long term spending just like the Republicans. Maybe you should remember the rachet effect from the 1970’s and 1980’s where during an economic boom, Democrats would start up new programs and then demand higher taxes during economic down times.

The real question is what was the debt as a percentage of GDP lowest at a time whne the economy was the worst in the post-war era. IN 1980 inflation and unemployment were both double digit. That is why President Carter lost and why the Reagan era began. You might also consider the bailouts of NYC and chrysler and that the highest murder rates in modern times was in 1980.
Don Williams Says:
October 4th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Re a’s comment “This sort of schoolyard stupidity is what passes for intellectual seriousness on the Left.

Do you think that perhaps the end of the Cold War, the 2000-2002 Clinton recession and 9/11 and the subsequent war might have had anything to do with any of this?”
————–
1) No, actually I think that it is the stupidity and ignorance of morons on the right. Who ,after getting screwed like dogs by their leaders, come back begging for more. Because the Prime Attribute of a right wing supporter is compulsive butt-kissing of his betters –more accurately, those who have more money.

2) Ronald Reagan was spending 7.5 GDP on the military in the 1980s — at a time when the Second largest economy (Japan) was spending less than 1 percent and the Third Largest economy (Germany) was spending less than 3 percent. Both Japan and Germany were less than 40 miles from the Evil Empire whereas the US was on the far side of the world.

3) When George H Bush nominated Robert Gates to be Director of CIA, several CIA analysts put their jobs on the line and testified to COngress that Robert Gates deliberately cooked the intel estimates to make the USSR Economy look far larger than it was. The USSR GDP Estimate was revised drastically downward shorter thereafter.

4) One of the things that add to the Reagan debt was the Savings and Loan crisis — due in part to John MCCain and his buddies leaning on federal Regulators who were trying to restrain high risk estate speculation (sound familar)?

5) The 2000-2002 recession wasn’t the Clinton Recession –right wing sources themselves blame Alan Greenspan for listening to Republican Senator Robert Bennett’s ghost stories about the Y2K threat and wildly pumping up the money supply in 1999 (to deal with bank runs that didn’t materialize) and then sucking the money back out of the economy in 2000. A gyration that helped killed a lot of startups.

Robert Bennett, by the way, was the Vice Chairman of the Republican 109th Congress’s Joint Economic Committee who put out the 2006 report telling Congress that it didn’t need to do anything about the subprime problem because the problem had passed.

6) Silicon Valley was also roiled in 2000 by rolling blackouts caused by Enron’s manipulation of the electrical grid.

7) And the conservative Wall Street Journal itself –in a Feb 2003 editorial — wondered why Bush had been shoving the computer and telecomms industries into deep recession by prolonged debate (2+ years ) on telecomm regulation. AT&T , Global Crossing etc were trying to deliver high bandwidth fiber optic service to households and businesses and Bells like Verizon were blocking their access via their monopoly on the local switchboards (something public utilities aren’t supposed to do.)

The Republican Congresses were dragging their feet on resolving the issue because they were getting shitloads of money from both sides — from the Bells and the Long Distance networks like AT&T. Of course, this predatory feeding killed off a lot of enterpreneurs. Who could have saved this country a LOT of oil by replacing business travel with video teleconferencing.

We’ve lost over a $Trillion because President George Bush didn’t list to intel warnings about Al Qaeda. We lost another $Trillion because he lied about what caused Sept 11 –and used Sept 11 as an excuse to grab Iraqi oil deposits for Houston.

9) Republican leaders are not businessmen — they are whores. Their supporters are thus compelled to imitate their leaders in being dishonest, butt-licking whores.
Don Williams Says:
October 4th, 2008 at 9:38 am
PS Robert Gates lied about the size of the Soviet Economy in the 1980s intel estimates in order to greatly inflate the Military capability of the USSR. That , in turn , was done to con Congress in order to justify shoveling tons of tax money to defense contractors like General Electric.

Yes –that General Electric. The corporation that hired Ronnie Reagan as a paid propagandist after the public showed little appetite for “Bedtime for Bonzo”.
viagra Says:
March 1st, 2009 at 5:57 am
viagra
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
viagra Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 4:49 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
zyban Says:
March 12th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
Great site. Good info
xanax Says:
March 14th, 2009 at 5:29 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
xanax
tramadol Says:
March 17th, 2009 at 2:31 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
tramadol
Tona Says:
March 18th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
I’ve never given this a try, but I think it’s about time I do.
tramadol Says:
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:22 am
tramadol
It is the coolest site,keep so!
brand viagra Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:28 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
buy cheap viagra
viagra brand Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:18 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cheap brand pfizer viagra
cheap viagra Says:
April 9th, 2009 at 6:43 am
I bookmarked this site, Thank you for good job! viagra

Matt Yglesias

The Record II

72 Responses to “The Record II”

Blogroll