News OK, what did George W. Bush do right?

[Al68]

This then is your defense of the Party of No fundamental operating principles? Just say no to anything that Democrats would be for?

That's a rather pouty way to be isn't it?

Why would I defend Democrats? And is it that big a deal to omit the smiley face?

Seriously, show me someone who will say no to everything that Democrats try to do, and I'll show you someone who represents my interests 90% of the time. 90% is enough to get my vote.

Dems scream bloody murder every time any politician even remotely tries to represent my interests (economic/classical liberal). Can you say that isn't true? When has any National politician ever suggested any substantial libertarian changes in economic policy without Dems screaming bloody murder? Can you give a single example?

 

[LowlyPion]

Seriously, show me someone who will say no to everything that Democrats try to do, and I'll show you someone who represents my interests 90% of the time. 90% is enough to get my vote.

You just had 8 years of George Bush looking out for your interests 90% of the time.

Instead of Government surplus, we have deficit as far as the eye can see. We find the country mired in foreign adventure.

The question at this point is can the country recover from looking after your interests 90% of the time.

 

[Al68]

You just had 8 years of George Bush looking out for your interests 90% of the time.

Instead of Government surplus, we have deficit as far as the eye can see. We find the country mired in foreign adventure.

The question at this point is can the country recover from looking after your interests 90% of the time.

I wasn't debating what my interests should be. That's pointless on this board with faulty logic taking the place of sound logic.

Government as a whole certainly did not operate in my interest 90% of the time in the last 8 yrs, obviously. If they had, Fannie and Freddie would never have been demanding bad mortgages from banks, banks would not have been stuck with them when Fannie and Freddie went under, government spending would have been a fraction of what it was, GDP would have been much higher due to lower taxes and regulatory burdens, etc. This mess was caused by government doing the very things I don't want government to have anything to do with at all.

There is no evidence that any of this mess was caused by me getting my way, quite the contrary. And if you don't know by now, the idea that I knew Bush was doing something right because Dems were screaming bloody murder was a joke! On the contrary, I think Bush failed miserably on keeping Dems from getting their way.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Fannie and Freddie are not what took down the system. It was primarily the credit default swaps and other derivatives, due to a lack of regulation. The Republicans pushed through deregulation of the derivatives markets in 2000.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It was also due to insane lending practices that had nothing to do with Fannie or Freddie.

...PAUL SOLMAN: Andrews applied for, and got, a no-ratio loan, in which his $2,500 monthly payments would consume nearly all his take-home pay.

No-ratio?

EDMUND ANDREWS: A no-ratio mortgage in which literally I left the income space blank.

PAUL SOLMAN: Therefore, there would be no ratio.

EDMUND ANDREWS: Correct, yes, because there was an issue of my debt-to-income ratio. But if you don't have any income that you're declaring, you have no debt-to-income ratio. Problem solved. Even at the time, I'm going, "I can't believe this. Is this a great country or what?"...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/jan-june09/andrews_05-21.html

The ability to bundle loans removed any and all incentives to adhere to responsible lending practices.

 

[mheslep]

You just had 8 years of George Bush looking out for your interests 90% of the time.

Instead of Government surplus, we have deficit as far as the eye can see. We find the country mired in foreign adventure.

The question at this point is can the country recover from looking after your interests 90% of the time.

Assigning all that to President Bush is misleading nonsense LP. We have a deficit as far as the eye can see per the CBO based yes on economic decline, but also on the recent $trillion stimulus, and the large increases in spending in the current President's budget. Obama and the Pelosi/Reid Congress did that budget, not Bush. The deficit for 2009 will be $1.6 trillion and has already exceeded anything under Bush (.5 trillion) and is projected to continue in deficit by CBO projections for a decade. That's given a recovered economy in CBO's estimate, so the reason is the budgeted spending. Also, If one want's to assign the economic downturn to Bush's watch, then the 2000/2001 dot com collapse and its resulting deficit goes under Clinton's watch. The '99 surplus evaporated under Clinton's last budget.
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/03/budget-deficit-as-percent-of-gdp.html

The US is involved in regular combat operations only in Afghanistan. The current President endorsed the initial 2001 action there, and since gaining office has redoubled US efforts there as you must know.

 

[LowlyPion]

Obama and the Pelosi/Reid Congress did that budget, not Bush. The deficit for 2009 will be $1.6 trillion and has already exceeded anything under Bush (.5 trillion) and is projected to continue in deficit by CBO projections for a decade.

... Also, If one want's to assign the economic downturn to Bush's watch, then the 2000/2001 dot com collapse and its resulting deficit goes under Clinton's watch. The '99 surplus evaporated under Clinton's last budget.

You can't have it both ways. The 2009 budget deficit is left over from Bush, just as much as you would want Bush to be able to say his first year was Clinton.

The Obama budget, no longer hides the cost of the Iraq war the way Bush was, so it's not clear what can actually be compared between Bush and Obama.

Meanwhile the economy is in the toilet, and there's a stimulus to be thrown into the breach. Saying that the breach is not of Bush's making is simply dissembling as far as I am concerned. Who else was it? It sure wasn't the Democrats running the Executive Branch.

 

[Al68]

Fannie and Freddie are not what took down the system. It was primarily the credit default swaps and other derivatives, due to a lack of regulation.

This is total nonsense. Any evidence?

It was also due to insane lending practices that had nothing to do with Fannie or Freddie.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/busin...ews_05-21.html

The ability to bundle loans removed any and all incentives to adhere to responsible lending practices.

You offer an example that had everything to do with Fannie/Freddie. Fannie and Freddie originated the idea to forego debt to income ratio requirements, and demanded that a portion of the mortgages sold to them would have insanely lenient requirements. Their stated goal was to make it easier to get a mortgage by creating demand for the kinds of notes ("bad") that had no private demand. And they were the ones demanding that bad mortgages be bundled with the good ones they bought. Bundling was their idea to compensate for the money they knew they would lose on the bad ones.

You're right about the practices being insane, but I'll bet you can't give a single example of a bank bundling or issuing bad mortgages, or issuing mortgages with the other insanely relaxed requirements that were not for Fannie/Freddie. Fannie/Freddie was the sole source of demand for them. Why would a bank purposely try to lose money? Their only reason for making the loans was to sell the notes to Fannie/Freddie. There was never any private demand for these bad mortgages. This lack of private demand was the reason Fannie/Freddie were created. And since I can't prove a negative, I'll challenge anyone to show an example of any private demand for such mortgage notes.

Challenge: an example of a bank practicing these insane lending practices without the reason being to sell to Fannie/Freddie. A single example of a bank with the practice of lending 125% home value, nothing down, poor credit, high debt to income ratio, etc., to keep the note in house, or to sell to another finance company to keep in house.

 

[Supercritical]

Opening diplomatic relations with Muammar al-Gaddafi.

 

[mheslep]

It was also due to insane lending practices that had nothing to do with Fannie or Freddie.


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/jan-june09/andrews_05-21.html

The ability to bundle loans removed any and all incentives to adhere to responsible lending practices.

The GSEs mostly invented mortgage bundling themselves.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2129788&postcount=467

 

[mheslep]

You can't have it both ways.

Quite right, so please don't try to do so as in

Instead of Government surplus, we have deficit as far as the eye can see...

The 2009 budget deficit is left over from Bush, just as much as you would want Bush to be able to say his first year was Clinton.

No, to say that without qualification is nonsense. As I stated above, yes revenue is down and Obama has inherited the revenue loss. He has also increased spending by trillions in 2009, and the projected deficit going forward for years, after an assumed economic recovery by CBO, is his responsibility.

The Obama budget, no longer hides the cost of the Iraq war the way Bush was, so it's not clear what can actually be compared between Bush and Obama.

You are confusing the budget figures in a particular omnibus spending bill and what we know about total government spending. We know exactly what the total difference between total government spending (including Iraq) and revenue were, the CBO figures reflect all of it.

Meanwhile the economy is in the toilet, and there's a stimulus to be thrown into the breach. Saying that the breach is not of Bush's making is simply dissembling as far as I am concerned. Who else was it? It sure wasn't the Democrats running the Executive Branch.

Who said such? You are changing the subject.

 

[LowlyPion]

Opening diplomatic relations with Muammar al-Gaddafi.

I think Reagan gets credit for that, after bombing and killing Gaddafi's daughter in 1986, Muammar decided being a responsible citizen of the world, renouncing nukes and terrorism under Clinton, was a better option. Giving Bush a nod for that is silly. He was just a clerk at a desk.

 

[LowlyPion]

As I stated above, yes revenue is down and Obama has inherited the revenue loss. He has also increased spending by trillions in 2009, and the projected deficit going forward for years, after an assumed economic recovery by CBO, is his responsibility.

So the Doctor is to be blamed for the medicine by those that caused the illness in the first place?

What was Bush trying to cure the US of? ... Prosperity?

Looks like he had a good go at that.

 

[Al68]

So the Doctor is to be blamed for the medicine by those that caused the illness in the first place?

What was Bush trying to cure the US of? ... Prosperity?

Looks like he had a good go at that.

Yeah, everyone knows that prosperity is caused by government regulation and taxation.

 

[Supercritical]

Check the timeline of events again. Gaddafi denounced the 9/11 attacks, which was significant given his status (self-proclaimed or otherwise) in the Muslim world. And his realignment regarding WMDs happened around the time of the Iraq War, regardless of whether the two were related. Wikipedia is a good source here, and you can cross-reference if you like.

It's doubtful that any president could have single-handedly changed Gaddafi's mind. However, it takes two to tango, and Gaddafi's diplomatic potential would not have been realized had the US failed to reciprocate. So the State Dept opened channels in 2006. It's very notable: the US has been criticized for not reaching out to moderates, especially in the Muslim world. By almost any measure, it's what one would expect a responsible administration to do, and it was Bush's policy in this instance.

 

[Phrak]

Looks like things have flip-flopped then. The Democrats have a wholesome American family in the White House and ...

Ahem. The man's a politician.

 

[LowlyPion]

Yeah, everyone knows that prosperity is caused by government regulation and taxation.

It worked fine for Clinton. He delivered surpluses. Of course Clinton showed fiscal restraint and didn't open the treasury up with unwise tax refunds or lower taxes, in the face of pursuing what looks to me like unwise foreign policy.

I say history will stamp FAILED on his thesis paper on how to govern.

 

[CRGreathouse]

It worked fine for Clinton. He delivered surpluses. Of course Clinton showed fiscal restraint and didn't open the treasury up with unwise tax refunds or lower taxes, in the face of pursuing what looks to me like unwise foreign policy.

Clinton may have been the last fiscal conservative we've had in the White House. Bush reduced taxes, true, but he didn't show Clinton's restraint with spending.

But it's not fair to credit Clinton with the surpluses resulting from the dot-com boom.

 

[Al68]

It worked fine for Clinton.

Not if "it" is government taxation and regulation. You can't possibly believe that was the cause of prosperity.

 

[LowlyPion]

Not if "it" is government taxation and regulation. You can't possibly believe that was the cause of prosperity.

I'd say we have ample evidence that the Bush-Cheney laissez faire, trickle-down, under-regulated stewardship has pretty much led to the economic perdition the economy now finds itself in. So prosperity certainly seems not in that direction, how ever you may want to characterize Clinton's success, the Bush-Cheney years put it in the rear view mirror for us.

 

[mheslep]

Clinton may have been the last fiscal conservative we've had in the White House.

Clinton + Gingrinch Congress

 

[Gokul43201]

Clinton + Gingrinch Congress

Oft repeated statement that (in fact, that's a rather mild version of it, compared to others I've read). But as it turns out, Clinton was cutting deficits during his first two years as well, when he had a strong Dem Congress (with bigger majorities in the House and Senate than the Reps ever had during the rest of the Clinton terms). The rate at which the deficit was cut in the first two years (without any help from the dot-com bubble) was nearly the same as the rate at which it was cut in the following six.

 

[russ_watters]

However, those first two years included the failure to nationalize healthcare. So it isn't like he didn't try to massively increase spending.

 

[Gokul43201]

However, those first two years included the failure to nationalize healthcare. So it isn't like he didn't try to massively increase spending.

But then, you can not know how he would have altered other spending plans if the healthcare plan did work out. But if you'd rather go into hypotheticals of what if ... then that's an argument I couldn't participate in since I don't really know enough to be able to speculate. Personally, I don't think Clinton was a devout fiscal conservative at heart. It just turns out that his administration was a lot more fiscally conservative than any other that we've had since Reagan (inclusive).

 

[turbo]

However, those first two years included the failure to nationalize healthcare. So it isn't like he didn't try to massively increase spending.

That's a canard, Russ. Nationalizing health-care would cut costs, not increase them, and it would put our businesses on a more equal footing with foreign competitors that have the luxury of being free from maintaining private health-care plans for their employees.

I was the IT guy for a large ophthalmic practice for years, and I know that doctors and hospitals could afford to charge much less for their services if they didn't have to constantly fight the insurance companies to be fairly paid for medically-necessary procedures, diagnostics, and treatments. We had to constantly watch the agings of receivables to keep our line of credit with the banks viable, and some insurance companies are horrible about delaying and denying payment for months on end. The insurance companies make money primarily in two ways - taking in more in premiums than they intend to pay out (refusal to pay) and interest on the float (money that they might intend to pay eventually, but delay, delay, delay). Banks got in trouble years back for refusing to clear checks in a timely fashion, because they were making tons of money off the float. Nobody has put health insurance companies under the same scrutiny, and they are far worse offenders.

Also, one reason that we over-pay for tests and diagnostics in the US is that if the doctors don't provide such documentation to the insurance companies, they will only pay a portion of the bill or none of it at all. I have friends in Canada, including a lady who does medical lab-work in Canada presently, and did similar work here in the US for a number of years until her visa expired. She wouldn't trade the Canadian insurance system for the US system on a bet, nor would any of my other Canadian friends. She and her daughter live in Ontario, and my other closest friends live in Nova Scotia with their children, running a small garage-repair-gas station. If they had to buy private health insurance, they would be in big trouble.

The GOP constantly tells us that public health-care insurance would be "disastrous" as if the present system is not already a protection racket that is stealing from our economic growth. The truth is that the US pays a higher % of GDP than any industrialized country, and leaves a FAR higher percentage of our citizens with little or no coverage. That forces poorer people to forgo checkups and preventive treatment until their conditions get bad enough to warrant an ER visit and perhaps lengthy hospitalization - the cost of which comes back on all of us.

 

[mheslep]

That's a canard, Russ. Nationalizing health-care would cut costs, not increase them, and it would put our businesses on a more equal footing with foreign competitors that have the luxury of being free from maintaining private health-care plans for their employees. ...

This is directly contradictory to the evidence despite your anecdotes. Medicare, basically government single payer health care +65 was, is, and will be the number one single buster of the US budget. Close behind in cost growth are government run Medicaid, government run Veterans care, ...

 

[Gokul43201]

Opening diplomatic relations with Muammar al-Gaddafi.

Check the timeline of events again. Gaddafi denounced the 9/11 attacks, which was significant given his status (self-proclaimed or otherwise) in the Muslim world.

I recall somewhat vaguely (I think this is from Richard Clarke's book), Gaddafi was ready to play since shortly after the PanAm incident and at the time, Clinton thought it was not worth it. I can't recall the reasoning, nor can I make a good argument for it myself. Perhaps someone else knows better? But if you want to look at timelines, Gaddafi has done a bunch of unexpectedly decent looking things (ceding disputed territory to Chad and Tunisia, compensating families of passengers of a downed Air France flight) for a long time before 9/11...all while being a vicious despot and funding any number of extremist/terrorist groups. It's really difficult to take anything away from such individual actions when dealing with someone as unpredictable as Gaddafi.

Personally, I think it may have been a good thing to get Gaddafi out of the dark shadows.

 

[turbo]

This is directly contradictory to the evidence despite your anecdotes. Medicare, basically government single payer health care +65 was, is, and will be the number one single buster of the US budget. Close behind in cost growth are government run Medicaid, government run Veterans care, ...

That's because Medicare is tacked on top of a system that is so bogged down by administrative overhead that they have to pay far more than public-health care systems in other countries. Doctors don't charge exorbitant rates because they want to, but because they have to. There is an Osteopath a couple of towns over who refuses to participate with most HMOs because he has just one assistant and himself and the paperwork and administrative costs would bury him. Office visits with him (for uninsured patients) run about $40-60 depending on the duration of the time-spot scheduled in.

The argument that the US must keep the present system (that is bankrupting us) and hope for different results is the classic definition of insanity.

 

[mheslep]

Oft repeated statement that (in fact, that's a rather mild version of it, compared to others I've read). But as it turns out, Clinton was cutting deficits during his first two years as well, when he had a strong Dem Congress (with bigger majorities in the House and Senate than the Reps ever had during the rest of the Clinton terms). The rate at which the deficit was cut in the first two years (without any help from the dot-com bubble) was nearly the same as the rate at which it was cut in the following six.

A budget issue that dwarf's all other cost savings actions taken during the 90's was welfare reform. That is truly something oft forgotten, though it also had exponentially exploding costs like we see in Medicare now, and it was destroying poor America. Though I still given him credit for eventually signing it, Clinton veto'd it twice and we would never have seen it out of a Tom Foley Congress.

 

[mheslep]

The argument that the US must keep the present system (that is bankrupting us) and hope for different results is the classic definition of insanity.

The argument that because one rejects single payer this somehow means we have to keep the present system is a classic false dilemma fallacy.

 

[turbo]

The argument that because one rejects single payer this somehow means we have to keep the present system is a classic false dilemma fallacy.

That is the argument being used right now by the insurance companies. Scare the public with even higher health care costs so they will shut up and take the status quo. The insurance companies are arguing that the situation can't be resolved, so it's either-or. Of course it can be resolved - by adopting a single-payer system that serves all citizens.

The insurance companies love to toss around the costs of medicare and other publicly funded programs while quite dishonestly ignoring the reason for the high costs - their own profit-taking and inefficiencies that they foist onto the system. Let's put this in the form that any physics newbie can understand.

To obtain a medical service for a person, a certain amount of money must change hands which we can equate to work.

To obtain a medical service for a person within a system that is larded with bureaucracy and administrative overhead and duplication a much larger amount of money must change hands.

Equating money with work, getting services for a person in an efficient system is equivalent to picking up a box and putting it on a table. Getting those same services for a person through an inefficient system is equivalent to picking up the box, climbing a flight of stairs, and putting the box on a table at that higher elevation. The greater the inefficiency, the more work has to be done to achieve the same result.

People who cite the costs of medicare without taking the price of administrative overhead, duplication, and other inefficiencies into account are uninformed in cost-analysis at best or disingenuous or even dishonest at worst.

 

[Gokul43201]

A budget issue that dwarf's all other cost savings actions taken during the 90's was welfare reform. That is truly something oft forgotten, though it also had exponentially exploding costs like we see in Medicare now, and it was destroying poor America. Though I still given him credit for eventually signing it, Clinton veto'd it twice and we would never have seen it out of a Tom Foley Congress.

True, but this too is getting a little bit into hypotheticals, isn't it? And what happened after the Foley Congress does not detract from what happened during it. And what happened during it was two successive and big deficit cuts.

The common denominator seems to be Clinton. He cuts deficits under both Congresses, and neither of those Congresses cut deficits under other Presidents (not the Dem Congress with Bush Sr nor the Rep Congress with Bush Jr). It shouldn't seem completely out of left field to argue that Clinton must have done something right.

 

[mheslep]

True, but this too is getting a little bit into hypotheticals, isn't it? And what happened after the Foley Congress does not detract from what happened during it. And what happened during it was two successive and big deficit cuts.

The common denominator seems to be Clinton.

My guess is that divided government is the common denominator, with R's in the Congress. With Clinton in particular, I recall there were two camps there - spend a lot and spend thrift, with his treasury secretary Rubin carrying the day.

 

[turbo]

Both sides in the public vs private insurance debate can cite false dichotomies. I can cite reasonable explanations for why the insurance companies' argument fall apart under cost-analyses, and the insurance companies cannot do so, won't do so, and won't allow their surrogates (bought-off congressianal hacks [in BOTH parties!], mostly) to do so. It is is dishonest to set up public vs private plans as a dichotomy without explaining the reason that public plans are FAR too expensive, having been overlain on previously-existing systems in which waste is rampant.

I am probably more fiscally conservative than 99% of the members of this forum, and though I have never been a high-wage earner, I haven't had any type of loan for well over 20 years now. I save and if I can't afford it, I don't buy it. It's about time our government took a similar approach, and realized what a rat-hole we have been dumping borrowed money into to enrich the insurance companies and their surrogates at the expense of the taxpayers.

Edited as a sign of appreciation to another forum member.

 

[mheslep]

Well, both sides can cite false dichotomies, ...

Sorry I was needlessly argumentative there - deleted.

 

[turbo]

Sorry I was needlessly argumentative there - deleted.

Appreciated. Be well.

 

[russ_watters]

But then, you can not know how he would have altered other spending plans if the healthcare plan did work out. But if you'd rather go into hypotheticals of what if ... then that's an argument I couldn't participate in since I don't really know enough to be able to speculate.

I'm only asking you to be reasonable. The proposal included additional spending and did not include a proposed way to cut spending in other areas to compensate. It is not reasonable to assume that had it passed neither deficits or taxes would have gone up.

People who are calling Clinton a "fiscal conservative" are just fooling themselves. The federal budget in 1993 was $1.41 trillion and in 2001 it was $1.86 trillion, an increase of 32% before inflation. Over the same period, tax revenue went from $1.15 to $2.03 T, an increase of 77%. Clinton increased spending all right - he just didn't increase it as fast as tax revenue increased. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/sheets/hist01z1.xls

 

[russ_watters]

The common denominator seems to be Clinton. He cuts deficits under both Congresses, and neither of those Congresses cut deficits under other Presidents (not the Dem Congress with Bush Sr nor the Rep Congress with Bush Jr). It shouldn't seem completely out of left field to argue that Clinton must have done something right.

Or perhaps the common deominator was the dot com boom? The GDP growth rate of the 1990s is mostly due to the explosion of the internet and it is something that Clinton had very little to do with.

 

[loseyourname]

I think breaking down the wall of separation between the CIA and FBI and the revamping of the CIA's paramilitary program were both good ideas, even if the latter was largely George Tenet's idea.

I'll also agree with the appointment of Robert Gates, but that "good thing" is offset by keeping Rumsfeld on for so long, who was one of the worst Secretaries of Defense we've ever had. He even negates my second good point a bit because he was so antagonist to Tenet and the DoD did a very poor job of cooperating with the CIA's paramilitary efforts under Rumsfeld.

In fact, his appointments in general were arguably the worst thing about Bush, even worse than his executive policies and the legislation he backed. Even in the case of USAID, which some in this thread are praising, he undermined whatever credibility he might have had by appointing a man to head up abstinence-only programs who had to resign after he was caught soliciting a prostitute.

Aside from the wars, which catch the headlines but I still think deserve a mixed verdict, his worst legacies to me are ending PAYGO, gutting the EPA and other regulatory agencies, and the mutilated version of No Child Left Behind that ended up passing.

 

[Gokul43201]

Or perhaps the common deominator was the dot com boom? The GDP growth rate of the 1990s is mostly due to the explosion of the internet and it is something that Clinton had very little to do with.

Netscape Navigator was launched in 1995. I think the dot-com boom began a year or two after that. We're talking about Clinton cutting deficits in his first two years in office, by over 10% and 20%. And don't forget that Bush Sr grew the deficit by over 10% in his last year in office. I think it's a little hard to attribute this sudden change predominantly to the dot-com boom or any of its precursors. One of the first economic moves by Clinton was the so-called deficit reduction bill that was passed within months of his taking office: it was primarily a bill of tax hikes. I'm not particularly surprised if tax revenues showed a jump since 1993.

 

[Gokul43201]

People who are calling Clinton a "fiscal conservative" are just fooling themselves. The federal budget in 1993 was $1.41 trillion and in 2001 it was $1.86 trillion, an increase of 32% before inflation.

And how does that compare with Bush Sr's increase of nearly 25% in just four years and Jr's increase of about 60% in eight? The claim made about Clinton was relative to other Presidents in recent history.

 

[mheslep]

Netscape Navigator was launched in 1995. I think the dot-com boom began a year or two after that. We're talking about Clinton cutting deficits in his first two years in office, by over 10% and 20%. And don't forget that Bush Sr grew the deficit by over 10% in his last year in office...

The problem here is you are blurring together the budget actions of the administration at the time and the underlying economic conditions. Bush Sr ended with a recession, so of course he saw falling revenue and a budget impact. That doesn't mean Bush Sr went wild on spending as we're seeing now.

 

[mheslep]

And how does that compare with Bush Sr's increase of nearly 25% in just four years and Jr's increase of about 60% in eight? The claim made about Clinton was relative to other Presidents in recent history.

Or a 16% increase in Obama's first year. (using 2010 - $3.6T outlays, 2009 - $3.1T), and a much greater percentage increase than that in the deficit and debt.

 

[Gokul43201]

...Again the problem here is you are blurring together the budget actions of the administration at the time and the underlying economic conditions. Bush Sr ended with a recession, so of course he saw falling revenue and a budget impact.

The recession ended in early '91. Sr had two years after that before he left office.

I'm not saying the enderlying market conditions have nothing to do with the budget health. I'm only saying that (i) variations in market conditions often tend to be much slower that variations in spending/revenue from big legislation, (ii) other Presidents faced with favorable market conditions haven't made as good use of them, from a debt perspective, and (iii) Congresses almost identical to those that cut deficits with Clinton, failed to do so with either of the Bushes.

That doesn't mean Bush Sr went wild on spending as we're seeing now.

I didn't say he did. But you're raising a strawman by comparing with spending now, when the argument calls for a comparison with spending during the Clinton years.

 

[Gokul43201]

Or a 16% increase in Obama's first year. (using 2010 - $3.6T outlays, 2009 - $3.1T), and a much greater percentage increase than that in the deficit and debt.

I thought you had just said that it was a bad idea to make judgment's about the Obama presidency based on 150 days in office? Anyway, sure, throw that in too. The claim being defended here (in this off-topic digression) is that Clinton was more fiscally conservative than other recent Presidents. Including Obama's big deficit growth projections does nothing to hurt that assertion.

 

[mheslep]

...Aside from the wars, which catch the headlines but I still think deserve a mixed verdict, his worst legacies to me are ending PAYGO, gutting the EPA and other regulatory agencies, and the mutilated version of No Child Left Behind that ended up passing.

I have left leaning friends at EPA, and though they griped under Bush none of them would say the EPA was 'gutted'. How do you support that statement? Regards NCLB, do you blame him for not vetoing the version that emerged, or for what the Congress (including the Dem Senate) did to it?

 

[mheslep]

I thought you had just said that it was a bad idea to make judgment's about the Obama presidency based on 150 days in office? ...

I intended to reply on that before when you mentioned it. I meant that it is to early to judge on matters of transparency in the wake of embarrassing moments, transparency caring over from the White House log thread. It is not too early at all to comment on Obama spending policy. To the contrary, the administration and its supporters trumpet how much action they've taken, and that action is not only fair game for evaluation, it demands it. We don't have to wait for some oversight committee to bring all the facts out. We know full well how much was credited for the stimulus bill, we know the details of the submitted 2010 budget and consequent CBO forecasts for a http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../21/GR2009032100104.html?sid=ST2009032100105", we know the government now owns GM & Chrysler, and has no plans to recover the $240B eaten by GSEs this year or to unload them. The fact that this was all done so quickly does not get it a pass in my view, but condemnation.

 

[mheslep]

Somehow I thought the surge in Iraq had been posted up early in the thread, but the word has not been used. Allow me. The surge goes at the top of my list, well out in front of everything else. In 2006 the insurgency was raging at 1000 attacks a week, Reid stated the "war is lost", and everybody in the government was looking for a way just to quit. Even the Pentagon was looking to stalemate the thing and hole up its bright shiny army in the big rear bases. while Iraq burned. Bush wouldn't have it.

Bob Woodwards book excerpted in WaPo
In 2006 Casey & Rumsfeld still argued for the more of the same:

For two years, Casey's strategy had rested on the premise that he was preparing the Iraqis to take control. In June 2006, he told Bush, "To win, we have to draw down." Rumsfeld was fond of using a bicycle seat analogy to describe the goal: Train the Iraqi forces to assume responsibility for security, and then "take the hand off the Iraqi bicycle seat," to let them get the hang of riding solo.

When Bush finally had Petraeus in place, the Pentagon was actively yanking Petraeus around and undercutting the surge because it didn't like stretching the troops out any further. The hole thing could have fallen apart. Bush had to use retired Gen. Keane to get word to Petraeus:

The two men sat alone. Keane took out the piece of paper and read the president's message, verbatim, aloud to Petraeus:

"I respect the chain of command. I know that the Joint Chiefs and the Pentagon have some concerns. One is about the Army and Marine Corps and the impact of the war on them. And the second is about other contingencies and the lack of strategic response to those contingencies.

"I want Dave to know that I want him to win. That's the mission. He will have as much force as he needs for as long as he needs it.

"When he feels he wants to make further reductions, he should only make those reductions based on the conditions in Iraq that he believes justify those reductions. These two concerns that we are discussing back here in Washington -- about contingency operations and the needs of the Army and the Marine Corps -- they are not your concerns. They are my concerns.

"I do not want to change the strategy until the strategy has succeeded. I waited over three years for a successful strategy. And I'm not giving up on it prematurely. I am not reducing further unless you are convinced that we should reduce further."

That was key. Bush took the responsibility for all the other Pentagon concerns and let the field commander do his job. Chalk it up to Bush stubbornness or whatever, it worked.
http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=ZjE4NTZhNGI4YzdjMDE3YmQzZDQ0NGFiYzIwNzRkNjQ="
all parts: http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/archives/?q=MjAwOTA0

"[URL
/07/AR2008090702426.html"]Woodward - WaPo Part II[/URL]
"[URL /08/AR2008090802839.html"]Woodward - WaPo Part III[/URL]

 

[Gokul43201]

It is not too early at all to comment on Obama spending policy.

But surely, it is silly to use it as a statistically significant sample to make comparisons with other Presidential terms.

 

[mheslep]

But surely, it is silly to use it as a statistically significant sample to make comparisons with other Presidential terms.

I disagree. These are not stochastic processes. The judgment need only rely on how much the current know budget figures are inline with purposeful administration policies; I think its clear they are very inline.