patrick.net

"if Bush is the reason Barry is having a bad economy, then Clinton's great economy MUST be due to those who came before him ... right? WHo was that again?"

What about this graph:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3g5

don't you understand, bap?

I realize you're not the spinniest top on the table, but hopefully if I point out that households were receiving $1T+ PER YEAR of funny money 2003 through 2006 things might begin to sink in with you.

By 2008 this massive firehouse of monetary injection into the middle class was failing -- it actually went negative RIGHT when Obama was elected:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3g6

and has stayed negative since then.

This is an immense hit to consumers' spending power and the general employment picture, since the Bush economy had grown dependent on HELOCs and serial cash-out refis.

The difference between Clinton's economy and now is that the 1990 recession was engineered by the Fed to cool down the late 80s speculative excess:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3g8

shows the Fed raising the fed rate (red line) to 10% (!) in 1989, which eventually translated in falling jobs. Plus there was post-Soviet realignment and defense cuts starting in 1990 IIRC, which was very recessionary to eg. California, which lost a lot of defense spending.

The blue line in the above graph shows the small amount of adjustment that was made in the recession -- 2 million jobs.

Extending the graph until now:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3g9

shows the true scale of the Bush crash -- 8 million bubble jobs gone just like that.

The Dems actually raised taxes in 1991-93, and the Republicans were screaming bloody murder about how they would kill the economy.

Would you like their quotes from that time bap?

I'd be happy to provide them for you, to show you how utterly wrong you conservatives are about everything.

wrong? You just said the guys are in office prior are responsible for whatever happens to the guy in office at present. And I agreed. And you say I am wrong, and even toss in every conservative there is. Okie dokie.

The invasion created by the illegal activist judge action of blocking Prop 187 ---- graph that cost please.

"You just said the guys are in office prior are responsible for whatever happens to the guy in office at present."

Who? When?

You seem to be missing some details here that I tried to fill in for you.

The Bush crew utterly destroyed our economy 2003-2008. That is undeniable, yes?

Like Obama, Bush Pere actually had to deal with his predecessor's bullshit, which caused major difficulties once the Texas and Massachusetts bubbles burst,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis

and we began drawing down from Ronnie Raygun's over-expansion of the military sector:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3gn

"Poppie" also did not veto the 1991 Dem tax rise ("read my lips") to his great credit, but as I said above, one of the main drivers of the Clinton recovery was the Fed switching from tight-money to easy-money once the 1991 recession appeared.

Again, the chart:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3g8

It seems that Greenspan was just a little slow with the stimulus, if he hadn't had held rates over 8% in 1990 the recovery would have appeared sooner for GHWB.

Another chart showing how the economy was actually recovering before Clinton was even sworn in:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3go

The late 1990s economy was colored by the Wintel and internet productivity increases, but underlaying it all was a very dangerous rise in financial sector leverage:

Here's a graph:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3gp

showing how the late 90s financial boom was 150% the YOY intake of the 80s boom (actual leverage was 2X, but I'll spare you the chart).

And yes, Bush the Lesser had to deal with the Clinton team's mistakes from 1995 on -- Gramm (R) Leach (R) Bliley (R), his father's NAFTA, plus the rising trade deficit with China, medical sector cost/profit inflation, the dotcom stock mania as the baby boom got overinvested in stocks.

But if you notice, every. single. fucking. problem I've listed is a conservative-made problem.

You guys are great at making problems, not so great at making solutions.

Bellingham Bill says

The Bush crew utterly destroyed our economy 2003-2008. That is undeniable, yes?

To a rational human being, yes. But the people who deny that Bush was evil also deny:

- that that trillions of tons of pollution mankind has released into the environment has any negative effects including altering climate.

- that capitalists will gladly screw over everyone else to make a buck.

- that corporations are not the same thing as people.

- that Jesus Christ was a socialist.

- that Gordon Gecko wasn't Jesus.

- that Obama was born in the U.S.A. just like Bruce Springsteen.

- that Obama's middle name Hussein does not mean he is related to Saddam Hussein.

- that Saddam Hussein wasn't connect to 911 or Al Qaeda.

- that Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction.

- that Bush and Cheney knew the previous two facts.

and I could go on and on.

The people who supported Bush/Cheney simply are not rational can cannot be reasoned with.

Dan8267 says

The people who supported Bush/Cheney simply are not rational can cannot be reasoned with.

What if ???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjuUWr9vaXo&feature=related

I agree with most of what Bill says generally, though I do have to interject one point.

The increase of consumer debt is merely a sympton of the larger disease, which is decreasing wealth for the masses. The wealth inequality causes all and it is the favor of capital over labor that drives this wealth inequality.

This favor of capital over labor is not specifically tied to Republicans. Clinton lowered capital gains taxes too, as an example. The only truley pro-labor tax policy in my lifetime was Obama lowering the payroll tax.

Increase the value of labor relative to capital and watch wealth equality return. Taxing one over the other, and increasing deadweight loss, is one way of accomplishing this. But it is not the only way.

Capital destruction by forcing mark-to-market and allowing debt default would work, though it may have the unintended consequence of lowering the value of labor (by decreasing short-term employment)

Focusing public consumption on public capital would be another way...that is, instead of spending $500B on welfare, lets spend $1T on publicly owned capital projects. As it is, that $500B is taken from taxes and borrowed, and given to the poor who use it all for consumption, which is inevitably funneled into the hands of the capital hoarders. This increased public debt is largely a burden of labor under our current tax sytem, but its benefits flow into the hands of th capital. You explain this well so I know you understand...

But my only point is regardless of the small tweaks to the system, the favor of capital over labor is the core problem. And sadly, neither (D) nor (R) is fighting for labor in Washington, and both have been fully implicated in constructing the current system. FDR didn't increase taxes on capital - he increased taxes on labor. JFK and LBJ fought for social programs that only help funnel wealth into the hands of capital. Clinton, capital gains, etc. Obama will have us funnel more wealth into the hands of capital with the requirement of private health insurance without offering a public option.

austrian_man says

What if ???

Excellent video. Gets to why I like Ron Paul even though there are quite a few things I strongly disagree with him on.

He's the only person in my lifetime that has been as strong of an advocate for human and civil rights as Martin Luther King or John F. Kennedy were before I was born.

I'd even take his more extreme policies if I could also get his policies on war and peace, foreign affairs, and his general approach to government.

You want to change this country... fight to change the way our voting system works... eliminate the the party system all together. Nobody has the answers, nobody knows what Ron Paul is or isn't capable of. It's all just speculation. You want to change this country? Change the way you think! When major issues are on the table, we should be able to vote for them as they come up.. each vote counts as one. We need to create a whole new system and get rid of everyone in politics currently! America needs a fresh start! Nobody knows the future or what Ron Paul can or can't do!

* He has zero plan for health care. "Let people beg for charity" is not a plan.

We need to recognize that public health care in this country is dead. It was so much compromized by the insurance reform, there is absolutely no chance of fixing it for long long time. By the time it will come back in serious discussions Ron Paul will be dead, and probably both you and me too. Thanks, Obama.

* He would wipe out large portions of government that actually do useful things, like scientific and medical research that private industry won't do.

I partially agree with you, but even this he can't do without Congress, so it won't happen during his 4 years in office. Most likely scientific and medical research will be still subsidised through different departments. (Maybe on a lower level than it is today.)

* He would eliminate the income tax, which is good, but if you just do that, it's even more regressive than our current system, and wealth will get even more concentrated into the hands of non-productive rent-seekers.

That's what will probably happen mostly on the state taxation level. But it's again a very slow process. Won't be finished during just 4 years.

I would support Ron Paul if he supported a government health insurance option, if he would acknowledge that good things can and do come out of government (this very internet we're using), and if he proposed some kind of land or asset tax to replace all other taxes.

Well, Ron Paul is not ideal, but he is the only alternative to a complete disaster. At least he will do whatever little a president may do to fix the most horrible mistakes US made for the last 4 decades. Everyone else will make it even much worse than what we got now.

Dan is correct in that all we need Ron Paul to do in the WH is VETO EVERYTHING. I mean EVERYTHING congress puts on his desk unless it reduces spending/government.

However we don't need Ron to lower the size of the Federal Government - I think bankruptcy/currency collapse will do this for us and the big spenders are accerlating this process even while the 'deficit commssion' meets the spending increases. lol.

Historically speaking the only way Big Gov gets significantly smaller is by BK, losing a war or both.

Look at how small 'the government' is in USSR now compared to 1988. THATS WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT. Its entropy. All things end. BTW afganistan war was probably the 'straw that broke thier back' according to some people. How much are we spending on our empire/jobs program?

According to my theory if Ron Paul got elected and vetoed all new spending/stimulous our 'spends twice as much as they take in ' government might limp along a few more years/decade BUT if we get 4 more years of Dempublican spending the government collapse/downsizing will happen SOONER? anyway all this is speculation. But it could be if you want smaller government vote for Democrats as they are destroying our system like a retarded kid with your credit card in the mall would destroy your finances.

Dan8267 says

- that Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction.

He did. He advocated selling oil in other than US$ currency. Just like Ahmadinejad, Kadafi, and Hugo Chavez.

I won't vote for a candidate unless they pledge to impose an individual mandate for housing that says you MUST buy a house or go to jail.