Bush deficits vs. Obama deficits
June 6th 2009 23:38
To say Obama's deficit proposals are better than those of the president who preceded him sounds like a partisan apologist just making a statement. It's not, and here's why. There are differences in what the spending does and how it affects the country and the economy.
The deficits of the Bush Administration were due in large part to excessive and unnecessary war spending as well as irresponsible tax cuts to the wealthy. The extra spending did nothing but increase debt with no tangible returns to anyone except corporate cronies from companies like Halliburton and such. Most Americans saw their real earning power decrease and their debts increase, all while the costs of health care exploded.
To stop the downward spiral that not just Bush, but bad policies built into the economic system since Reagan put us in, big steps had to be taken. While I'm no fan of the bank bailouts, the way things were didn't leave alot of wiggle room. What is important to do is to make sure banks going forward are heavily regulated and broken up into smaller entities. Banks should have been seized and reformed instead of just
The Obama stimulus package was needed to inject fire into a smoldering and puttering economy. And more may be needed, the trick is to do it smartly. Throwing money at the problem without real and measurable results does nothing. To truly stimulate is to provide jobs, preferably infrastructure jobs. Our highways, bridges, airports, rail system, all need brought up to date. Real stimulus not only has a near-term effect but a long-term also.
Road projects started now will take years to complete, and will provide good wage jobs for families for years too. High-speed rail projects will not only provide jobs but help with congestion and emission concerns, as well as provide a good travel alternative. Energy projects will help move us away from oil dependency.
There's some concern about the dollar and it's reduction in value - here's what the Obama naysayers don't understand - the dollar was in trouble anyway. The dollar has been headed down in worldwide stature for years. If it wasn't for the fact that so many countries hold dollars, it would be in much worse shape now. So if a dramatic hit on the dollar is in the future, it makes since to use it now to build infrastructure and get health reform.
Real health reform is critical to the future of not only the economy but the entire American way of life. If we cannot join the civilized world and deem health care a right and make it universal we won't be able to get out of the economic muck that may be with us for awhile.
And if we wait to act, the political will might not be enough to overcome the big money health insurance companies are throwing around. Obama is right, it may be now or never for health care reform. When the dollar degrades further we might not be able to do much. Once we have health care reform, we won't go back on it. And the public option is a requirement that must not be allowed to be watered down.
Yes, the dollar is due a reckoning. It may come in the form of high inflation. If it gets too bad, the reckoning may come through devaluation. The dollar may well lose it's position as the world's reserve currency, and probably should. A non-national reserve currency would be better for all, as it wouldn't be tied to any one nation or group of nations.
That change is probably coming anyway, and it's better to be out in front of it instead of waiting for the reserve currency to name itself. The Chinese Yuan, for example, could be well-placed in the future. But to use it as worldwide reserve would be counter-productive to the interests of other nations.
So it does make sense to spend some deficit money now, just as a person might use a credit card in an emergency. The important thing about using emergency credit is to know just what makes an emergency, and not throw it away on trickle-down theory or wars of choice.
The deficits of the Bush Administration were due in large part to excessive and unnecessary war spending as well as irresponsible tax cuts to the wealthy. The extra spending did nothing but increase debt with no tangible returns to anyone except corporate cronies from companies like Halliburton and such. Most Americans saw their real earning power decrease and their debts increase, all while the costs of health care exploded.
To stop the downward spiral that not just Bush, but bad policies built into the economic system since Reagan put us in, big steps had to be taken. While I'm no fan of the bank bailouts, the way things were didn't leave alot of wiggle room. What is important to do is to make sure banks going forward are heavily regulated and broken up into smaller entities. Banks should have been seized and reformed instead of just
The Obama stimulus package was needed to inject fire into a smoldering and puttering economy. And more may be needed, the trick is to do it smartly. Throwing money at the problem without real and measurable results does nothing. To truly stimulate is to provide jobs, preferably infrastructure jobs. Our highways, bridges, airports, rail system, all need brought up to date. Real stimulus not only has a near-term effect but a long-term also.
Road projects started now will take years to complete, and will provide good wage jobs for families for years too. High-speed rail projects will not only provide jobs but help with congestion and emission concerns, as well as provide a good travel alternative. Energy projects will help move us away from oil dependency.
There's some concern about the dollar and it's reduction in value - here's what the Obama naysayers don't understand - the dollar was in trouble anyway. The dollar has been headed down in worldwide stature for years. If it wasn't for the fact that so many countries hold dollars, it would be in much worse shape now. So if a dramatic hit on the dollar is in the future, it makes since to use it now to build infrastructure and get health reform.
Real health reform is critical to the future of not only the economy but the entire American way of life. If we cannot join the civilized world and deem health care a right and make it universal we won't be able to get out of the economic muck that may be with us for awhile.
And if we wait to act, the political will might not be enough to overcome the big money health insurance companies are throwing around. Obama is right, it may be now or never for health care reform. When the dollar degrades further we might not be able to do much. Once we have health care reform, we won't go back on it. And the public option is a requirement that must not be allowed to be watered down.
Yes, the dollar is due a reckoning. It may come in the form of high inflation. If it gets too bad, the reckoning may come through devaluation. The dollar may well lose it's position as the world's reserve currency, and probably should. A non-national reserve currency would be better for all, as it wouldn't be tied to any one nation or group of nations.
That change is probably coming anyway, and it's better to be out in front of it instead of waiting for the reserve currency to name itself. The Chinese Yuan, for example, could be well-placed in the future. But to use it as worldwide reserve would be counter-productive to the interests of other nations.
So it does make sense to spend some deficit money now, just as a person might use a credit card in an emergency. The important thing about using emergency credit is to know just what makes an emergency, and not throw it away on trickle-down theory or wars of choice.
| 37 |
| Vote |
Comment by Morgan Bell
Science News
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
it explained how George W Bush got away with making major tax cuts and increasing internal spending during times of war and blowing the deficit way out
CLICKHERE for full transcript
GREGG IP: His father endured some very serious political pain to do the right thing to get the deficit down. And one of the steps was that a rule called "pay-go," or pay as you go. And this rule basically meant that if you wanted to introduce a new tax cut or a new spending program, you had to find a way to pay for it with an offsetting tax increase or spending cut. Well, in 2002, that rule expired.
ALICE RIVLIN, Dir., Office of Management & Budget, 1994-96: In the Clinton years, we had the "pay-go" rule, pay as you go, and that meant we couldn't pass a lot of good-sounding ideas, including Medicare prescription drugs. It's not that nobody thought of that in the '90s. A lot of people thought of it. But we couldn't pay for it. To pay for it, we would have had to have done a tax increase or cut out some other spending in major proportions, and nobody wanted to do that, so we didn't do it.
FORREST SAWYER: But the Bush administration did do it. With "pay-go" no longer restraining spending, they had pushed through Medicare part D, a program that's projected over time to cost as much as $8 trillion.