Bush I had a recession. Bush II gave us the Great Recession.

[Orlandodem]

Bush III would give us the Great Depression after the bottom falls out.

Remember that. It's a very easy way to remind folks of Bushonomics.

[tridim]

1. People don't remember/know what happened in 2007-2008

If faux Newz doesn't talk about it, it didn't happen.

[hifiguy]

2. Bush III would be Hoover II.

And then some, now that the Bank$ter$ can put the populace on the hook for their gambling binges.

[B Calm]

3. With the Fox news teaching them it was George W policies that pulled us out of the

recession 2 years into Obama's first term, I don't know if they'll believe you!

[Major Hogwash]

4. Did you know that Reagan had record fiscal deficits, until Bush I beat them by a mile?

And then, just to prove that Republican Presidents don't know the difference between their asshole and a hole in the ground, Bush II had the entire world on the brink of disaster, in just 7 years!!

And yet, somehow, most of the American people believe that REPUBLICANS are the best party to handle the federal budget and improve the economy!!!

This is partly our fault; we need to educate the American people about who started trickle-down economics in this country, and how Barack Obama pulled us from the edge of the abyss.

We need to shout it every single day at this forum, on Twitter, and on Facebook.

And we need to quit calling President Obama a piece of shit used car salesman.

[MFrohike]

7. I hate that stupid talking point

Fiscal deficits are not a bad thing. If they were, the US wouldn't exist because the federal government has run a deficit for almost 90% of its history. Deficit hype is nothing but a neoliberal talking point to kill the welfare state. Democrats who repeat it are useful idiots for the right.

The issue is how that money is spent, not that it is spent. When it's all funneled to a very narrow band of society, that is a very bad thing because it adds to the ability of that narrow band to buy the government. When it's funneled to a wide band of society, money goes into the hands of people who will spend it and thereby create both wealth and jobs.

The hype over the federal deficit has nothing to do with the national debt. It is all about the division of power within our society. If the federal government lessens spending, or runs a surplus, that removes money from the private sector. While this can be a good thing, only if inflation is raging, it's generally quite bad because the wealthy manage to redirect taxation from themselves to everyone else. Thus, the relative balance of power, a big measure of which is money, is shifted further toward the wealthy. Even if their taxes go up, they can still better afford it than you or me.

[joshcryer]

10. When you're paying billions in interest it is.

[MFrohike]

12. No it isn't

Yeesh, the national debt is denominated in dollars, not gold. Congress could pay it off tomorrow if it wanted. However, even if Congress chooses not to do that, which is the case, the fact that current interest rates, set by the Fed, are near-zero make it an irrelevant point. As long as the economy continues to grow at a rate that exceeds those rates, not hard at all to do these days, the share of the budget devoted to interest payments will shrink every year.

[joshcryer]

16. The national debt is $17 trillion, interest on it is $233 billion.

This is bad accounting and you know it, especially since most of it is due to corporate welfare and MIC.

[MFrohike]

18. Sigh

You just quoted me two numbers in a vacuum. You could have made up two numbers and it would mean as much because you haven't said anything about the rate of growth, the rate of inflation, or the actual interest rates. It may seem significant to quote those numbers, but without a frame of reference, they don't mean a thing.

If the rate of growth exceeds the rate of added debt, the debt-GDP ratio falls. If the rate of inflation exceeds the rate of interest, the real value of debt decreases. This is pretty basic finance. The issue isn't numbers in the abstract, it's all about the rates by which those numbers increase or decrease in relation to other key numbers.

Oh, by the way, deficit scolds always forget about the most important factor when it comes to hyping their issue: Treasury bonds have been at or near record highs since 2008. That means the yields are in the toilet. The yields are the rate of interest on the much-decried national debt. That alone should have shut up all the deficit scolds.

[joshcryer]

22. It's still a matter of fact that interest could pay for other things.

Such as, you know, education, infrastructure.

Of course, you could always borrow more, but as long as your interest is that high, you're spending billions on paying for interest, which could be better spent elsewhere.

[MFrohike]

23. Yeesh

Most of that interest is paid to Americans, who pay local and states taxes that fund education and infrastructure. For all the hype about foreign debt holders, foreign countries hold about 1/3 of the total debt issued by the US government. That means the rest is held domestically. A wide range of people hold them in America, from retirees to their pension funds to investors interested in security over yield to financial institutions to Social Security itself. It might make sense to rage against the distribution, but it's silly to argue against government debt in its entirety.

Issuing debt has its value. It works as a time-delayed inflation sink and allows people a safe harbor for their money, rather than risking it. It provides a readily transferable asset for a variety of transactions, both beneficial and not. Could it better spent elsewhere? Maybe. It's pretty hard to assess that unless you understand how it all actually works.

Oh, I don't know what you meant about "your interest is that high." Interest rates on US debt are ridiculously low. Don't believe me? Take a look. By the way, notice how the rates have been dropping all during this month. I'd expect more of that with energy prices going into the tank.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yield

Forgive me, long term rates are dropping, shorter term rates are slightly up.

[NewDeal_Dem]

19. +100

[joshcryer]

8. And people still think there's no difference between the parties.

That they'd rather sit home if Clinton is the nominee than get out and vote.

People have truly short term memories.

[Major Hogwash]

24. Social programs funded at the federal level are hurt by deficits.

That's where the budget cuts are made during every recession.

[Blanks]

5. Dubya lied about torture. He knew it was happening and lied about it...

That should be reason enough to not let another Bush anywhere near the White House.

[demigoddess]

6. Bush III could wipe out this country

I wonder how long til we see our first Dictator for Life???

[MFrohike]

9. They had help

The early 90s recession was partly caused by the collapse of the S&Ls, which had been helpfully deregulated by a Democratic Congress. A Democratic president would lay much of the groundwork for the 2008 collapse, while being helped immeasurably by one of the most corrupt and incompetent administrations in American history: the Dubya administration.

I mention the Democratic role in these problems to highlight an ongoing problem: the adherence of national Democrats to discredited economic policies. The policies are discredited not by mainstream economists, but their objective, and complete, failure on their own terms. They strangle prosperity for the majority and funnel it to a select few. It's time for the Democratic party to toss failed economic theory (Robert Rubin & co., I'm looking at you) and try something that might actually work.

[joshcryer]

11. You neglect the rise of ALEC and conservationism of the boomers.

[MFrohike]

14. What?

What does that have to do with anything? ALEC is recent phenomenon and the vaunted conservatism of the Boomers vanishes instantly once they see their own pocketbooks affected.

I was responding to a very simplistic, and wrong, view of our recent economic history. Focusing on what the right did is important, but it's also extremely important to note what the Democratic party did wrong. You won't be stopping them if all you're selling is a kinder, gentler version of neoliberal economic policy.

[joshcryer]

17. The Democratic party had to pander.

It's why we got shit like DOMA/DADT under a Democratic President. It's why welfare got shuttered under Clinton.

Clinton probably couldn't have even got elected if he didn't decry deficit spending. If he didn't call for balancing the budget. That's a fact of the times he ran for office.

[MFrohike]

20. Cool

Except it started under Carter, not Clinton. It's also not much of a defense when it's easy to trace those policies to one of the worst economic collapses in American history. It's essentially a rallying cry of "we fucked up a bit less than they did!"

[liberal_at_heart]

13. Obama is about to sign a budget deal that will continue to ensure the exact same circumstances that

led up to the crash of 2008. So whoever the next President is, Obama will have some responsibility for the next crash.

[bullwinkle428]

15. It was reported today that Shrub now has a positive approval rating (49% approve

vs. 46% disapprove).

[NewDeal_Dem]

21. who are these people? When Bush was leaving office, all the wingers I knew hated

him, absolutely despised him.

What the heck happened?