OK, what did George W. Bush do right?

[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.