All Out of Ideas, Democrats Ressurect Their Favorite Villain

Yes we can or yes we will? It is about time Obama stepped out of the hypothetical and into reality. After all, he was elected because he promised a fundamental change in Washington. It is little wonder then that after an underwhelming first year in office, conservatives and liberals alike are wondering when he will finally take ownership of this presidency. If recent news is any indication, Obama may be forced to do so soon, if for no other reason than blaming Bush, rather than coming up with working policies, is falling flat.

The Bush attacks are coming from all over:

  • A campaign advertisement for Jon Corzine closed with “Chris Christie: Bush’s friend. Bush’s policies. Bad for New Jersey.
  • A radio ad from Creigh Deeds in the Virginia gubernatorial race featured dialogue like, “George Bush – what a disaster for our economy,” “What I can’t figure out is why this Bob McDonnell wants to do it just like Bush” and “Creigh Deeds: a little more Mark Warner and a LOT less George Bush”
  • Or the Massachusetts Democratic Party which ran a mailer for the Coakley campaign that said, “What can Brown do to you? He can reward corporations that ship your job overseas just like George W. Bush.”

So what do all of these have in common (beyond a backhanded shout-out to George Bush)? They all lost; with two of the races representing upsets in key Democratic states.

But not all liberal pundits have learned from the mistakes. In his recent article “Democrats Need to Learn the Blame Game” James Carville argues that,

“Democrats would not be playing the blame game with one another for the loss for the healthcare debacle if they had only pointed fingers at those (or in this case, the one) who put Americans (and most of the world) in the predicament we’re in: George W. Bush.”

If this is the best strategy Democrats can come up with to try and regain the momentum they have lost over the past year, consider me ecstatic. After all, as Steve Hidebrand, a top aide on Obama’s presidential campaign told Politico,

“Voters are pretty tired of the blame game. . . What a stupid strategy that was.”

But more importantly, it sends a signal that the Democrats are out of ideas. The public, fearful of a the words “trillion” and “debt” being used so often in the same sentence had long abandoned many of the Democrat’s plans. The stimulus was a waste. The bailouts were a bust. The only arrow left in the Democrat’s quiver was supposed to be the one that would win the war – health care. But with Scott Brown’s upset bid signaling that the public didn’t want the Democratic health care plan, the party has been left searching for answers. Thus far the only thing they have been able to come up with is a freeze on discretionary spending that Obama previously called “a hatchet” when we really need, and “a scalpel.”

With their fragile house of cards, constructed in back room deals and glued together with the mortar of Barack Obama’s personality, now in ruins, Democrats are resurrecting their favorite villain…George Bush. But going negative won’t work. Not for the party whose slogan in 2006 was “A New Direction for America.” And it especially won’t work with the young adults who carried him into office.

Young adults engaged in campaigns and showed up at the polls in record numbers based on the promise of “change.” They wanted change from the passing the buck blame game that had become politics as usual in Washington. A grassroots campaign which mobilized and organized enormous numbers of young adults convinced people that Barack Obama was that change. As Patrick Ruffini explained on the NextRight,

[W]hat happens when the campaign goes away? What happens when the enthusiasm inevitably ebbs and the hard work of governing begins? The immediate benefits of a bottom-up strategy become less clear. You revert to traditional instincts, where powerful obstacles stand in the way of getting things done — even amongst your base, and the wielding of massive political machinery cannot be left to amateurs.

More than simply reverting to top-down governing, it appears that the Democratic leadership has relapsed ever further – to playing the blame game.

As 2008 made clear, we are tired of leaders passing the buck, we want results. It is time for the President to take ownership of the mistakes he has made on the economy, on health care, and on the stimulus. Young adults are smarter than to have their attention diverted from the recent causes of our lack of progress. It’s time to put the Bush-blaming to bed. But do Democrats have any ideas left to take its place?

- Brandon Greife, Political Director, College Republican National Committee (www.crnc.org)

0
Your rating: None

Comments

 It is true that Obama has

 It is true that Obama has been off track for the past year. And it should be a wake up call that he has to run the country at least into the center. 

It is easy to blame Bush as we had 8 years of failed policy. Get it! 8 fu**** years of ignorance, arrogance, tax cuts and the loss of jobs, deficits and debt, our money going to Iraq, and the neglect of our country. It was "guns and butter" economics. The worse you can do to the economy. 

You talk of democrats out of ideas and yet republicans have no ideas. We had 8 years of tax cuts and where are we today? We had laissez-faire for 8 years and where are we today? We had "stay the course" for 8 years and where are we today? 

The bailouts were not a bust. It saved us from a depression. It saved us from even higher unemployment. 

A capitalist society is not a perfect society. We see ups and downs. We see speculation. We see politicians targeting the wrong sectors. And we see political parties supporting failed ideologies. At times the government has to step in where the private sector failed. 

It was surprising that Obama favored nuclear power plants and off shore drilling. He also supported high speed rail in which we are behind other countries. 

But going negative on Bush policies is only saying where we have come from. After all, we had a surplus when Gingrich and Clinton left office.  And we already know we will pay a price for that for some 10 to 20 years. 

Obama now has to step up to the plate and deliver. Hopefully republicans will come aboard and deal with the budget. We saw this mess coming 5 years ago. So republicans have no room to complain when they supported failed policies. 

 

 

What I'm Not Saying

I'm not saying that Bush shouldn't carry some of the blame. But Bush-blame is what what got President Obama elected, it is not what is going to make him a successful president. I'm simply saying that he must take ownership of the problems and show leadership if he ever wants to solve them. Rhetorical attacks just don't get very far.

I would also disagree that Republicans have no ideas. There has been a fundamental realignment of conservatism and the Republican Party which was necessary to heal the wounds with the American public who did not approve of George Bush's policies. To that end, conservative ideals present many useful solutions and answers to today's problems which I believe the Democrats would be wise to incorporate into their legislation.

conservative ideals present

conservative ideals present many useful solutions and answers to today's problems which I believe the Democrats would be wise to incorporate into their legislation.

Please cite them, specifically.

conservative ideals

1.  Self-reliance.  You are the solution to your problems.  Not the state, not your boss, not your parents.  Stand on your own two feet and take charge of your life.  If you need help - ask for it.  But don't just sit there and complain that you feel entitled to help.  So if government is going to do anything with respect to health care, it should be with an eye towards helping individuals help themselves, not guaranteeing them some entitlement.

2.  Fiscal prudence.  Don't live beyond your means.  You can't spend your way into prosperity.  So government should just stop the Keynesian bullshit.  Not only is it not working, it's scaring us half to death with the enormous amount of debt that is being racked up.  Government should help individuals to create their own wealth and to live within their means.

That's two biggies, off the top of my head.

I will be the first to admit that there are scores of Republicans who don't live up to these ideals.  But you asked for conservative ideals, and there they are.

Chemjeff, I'm familiar with

Chemjeff, I'm familiar with conservative principles and ideals.  I was asking about the "useful solutions" that Brandon alluded to.

Health care is as good as any topic for you or him to discuss  the conservative solutions (extrapoliated from its ideals) to current challenges in the health care system.  You said:

So if government is going to do anything with respect to health care, it should be with an eye towards helping individuals help themselves, not guaranteeing them some entitlement.

Please describe the practical actions that government can take to "help individuals help themselves," consistent with conservative ideals, that would address these current health care issues:

  • pre-existing condition exclusions
  • recissions
  • bending the cost-curve

Thanks. 

My, My, how soon we forget the Bush recovery

"8 fu**** years of ignorance, arrogance, tax cuts and the loss of jobs, deficits and debt, our money going to Iraq"

My, My, and the Democratic Congress/Senate Majority since 2006 has absolutely no responsibility ?  Right ?

Obama and Friends would Kill for Bush's un-employment numbers....pick one of the 8 years, any year.

As for "Iraq Money", Obama just set a NEW Record spending budget of 700+ Billion for the War on terror.

As for Deficits and Debt, In 2009 Obama just Tripled Bush's Highest Deficit, and next week will send a 4 Trillion Spending Bill to congress (Rumor being published).

Don't become a usefull Idiot, Looking backwards at Bush while Congress Robs the Store.  Keep up, quit looking backwards. 

 

 For most of the nation

 For most of the nation during Bush's years, it was a regular economy. However, during these years we still lost jobs and pay was stagnant. The manufacturing kept leaving the country and certainly hurt the small towns and the Midwest the worse. We saw the deficits and debt pile up over 5 years ago and we "stayed the course." We saw the quagmire ignored for over 3 years and "stayed the course" until Murtha and others were calling for a pull out as we were having more casualties and until you had the Iraq study group and others fixed the quagmire. We also saw over 5 years of neglect of Afghanistan and wondered if we were going to fix the situation. We also saw no response on Katrina for some 3 days, and this was after having a Friday night teleconference.

Yes, we heard "stay the course", "deficits don't matter" by Cheney, and "America, has no problems" by Bush at the Olympics. 

Obama and Friends would Kill for Bush's un-employment numbers....pick one of the 8 years, any year.

Numbers are deceiving. It is not what the numbers are at present tense. It is what you are doing for the future. The tax cuts was for the here and now. Deficits and debt piled up. Jobs left the country. Money sent to Iraq. Our country ignored. And blaming Obama on a war that Bush started is being ignorant.

As for Deficits and Debt, In 2009 Obama just Tripled Bush's Highest Deficit, and next week will send a 4 Trillion Spending Bill to congress (Rumor being published).

The country was a total mess when Obama came into the office. Some of the problems was not created by Bush, however, many areas were ignored. Whether you like it or not, the banks had to be bailed out. It was doing that or accept higher unemployment. Either way, we pay the price. 

Looking backwards accepts our problems, looking forward we need to fix the problems. 

http://www.toledoblade.com/assets/pdf/TO51488727.PDF

Ohio and rest of U.S. not creating jobs in economic sectors with import competition - Reader comments at The New York Sun

Country was a Total Mess, when the Big "O" arrived ?

Well, Making Loans to people who could not Pay them back........started with ACORN, and Obama was helping ACORN Big time.  Acorn threaten the banks with Lawsuits about "Diversity" and discrimination if the banks did not make the Bad Loans.

 The Banks only went ballistic on Making Bad loans when FHA and friends said they would BUY the bad loans back.   Gee, make a BAD loan to an Un-Qualifed person, and then sell it for a profit to the Fannie Mae / FHA guys.   Far out, how many bad loans can I make ?

Did you Know the FHA and Fannie Mae have their own individual government regulatory Agency ?   And they Blew the Whistle on the supposed "Bush disaster that Obama inherited" ?  They regulatory agency took it all the way to a Congressional Review Committee......controlled by Democrats, not Bush.

The video of the Congressional Banking Committee and Barney Frank bad mouthing the Whistle Blowers is on YOUTUBE.   And in 2003, Bush blew the whistle on the "Financial Problem", but Congress didn't listen then, either.

Geez, everbody and their Uncle knows how the Financial Meltdown started.  But there are a lot of uneducated useful idiots out there, lots of them.  

The Last Three Politicians that Publically Blamed BUSH, have one thing in Common.......New Jersey, Virginia, Massachusetts, they ALL LOST ELECTIONS.  

Actually, I'm rather happy you're still Spreading the Dis-information baloney.   I think I'll have some Tea, and start a Party.

 Since you brought up the

 Since you brought up the loans, then here is Bush talking about them with his home ownership society. YouTube - Home Ownership and President Bush

Now, I don't want to put the whole blame on Bush. I think everyone had a hand on this. However, it shows how our country went down the wrong track. Again, we had tax cuts for the here and now and did nothing for the future. The tax cuts did not solve problems, did not create prosperity, did not prevent the loss of jobs, and did not prevent a recession. 

We had deficits and debt which the republican party either excused or just said it was just a small part of GDP. 

We have 2 wars and they are not paid for. 

We had a financial failure with high speculation on Wall Street and its banks. 

We also had gurus on Wall Street who said this is going to be an information society while we lost our manufacturing jobs.

And we had a failed ideology run by the republicans and a false attempt to keep the economy going by only having tax cuts and having affordable housing. 

It was 8 years of our jobs going overseas, our money going to Iraq, and our country left in neglect. 

Now, having said that. I will say that there is no perfect economics. The republicans don't have it and the democrats don't have it. And just because one thing works one time, does not mean it will work again. Or that you can just have tax cuts and all our problems are solved. 

You have to have governance and not ideology. You have to fix problems when they arise. And we have to have greatness and achievements that we did in the past in this country. 

Take it easy on the college guy

Please take it easy on the college guy.  After all, he didn't have the benefits of obama indoctrenation.  Certainly he forgets that Democrats are obviously not doing enough. Remember the past year of Republicans every where wondering where the democrats have been?  Have the dem been cutting brush on their farm? or Duck hunting. I can't remember,in the past year, a single instance of a Republican complaint that the Democrats led by that lazy Obama doing too much. Or pushing this pet project or that.  What you win the presidency and disappear like that?  Can anyone help me out here?  Can someone take the time to run a Google search and see if the Republican's have ever critizied the Democrat's lack of ideas and agenda for the past year?  I can't seem to find my mouse button to click it myself.

Here's specifically what I would like researched.

Why can't the Democrats push out something like a health care plan for once?  Or a stimulus plan? Or a Cap and Trade Plan? Or a bailout of AIG?  Or a bailout of Ford?  How about taking on the terrorists? Attempt to figure out what to do with Guatanamo?  Oh yeah and there there was the Afghan war plan, the Iraqi troop withdrawl plan. What up with that?   Can't they do anything besides pretend to shuffle paper around?

IS ANY DEMOCRAT DOING ANYTHING IN WASHINGTON?  Frankly its refreshing to see the Democrats with so few ideas and the Republicans with so many. Man I remember that budget proposal the Republican brain trust put out. You know the one that was 8 pages long detailing the Republican priorities for the year.  It was great to see that all those trees were saved. Or how about that super long health care reform plan. What was it? 17 pages or so?  I was bored after 5 but it's nice to know that in 17 pages you can solve our national healthcare crisis. It's not like it's a cell phone contract or something that also runs 17 pages. It's so much simpler you know.

Anyway, so off course the Democrats are going to resurrect their favorite villians since they have no ideas to push on us.  I hope that they bring back: Uramoron, that was my favorite villian of all time!  I loved it when he would twist the facts and just ignore the obvious because the people who believed him are too stupid to know better.

 

 

A few thoughts.

First, Brandon, you're right about blame game.  It's not a winning argument.  I think, though time will tell, that our President last night did a decent job of drawing distinction between "blame game" and accurately assigning blame in order to move forward in the right context.  Indeed, greater than 3/4 of our current national deficit is directly, 100% attributable to Republican tax-cut and spend policies.

Second, this is the second post where your meme is that the Republican Party represents change.  If that's the case, I think you've got a similar communication problem you're sharing with our President.  Neither you, the Republican Party nor the conservative "movement" have made that case (at least that I've seen).  Best I can tell you're still recommending a combination of tax cuts and de-regulation coupled with the elimination of Social Security, Medicare/caid and the Dept. of Education (and even then, sometimes the Republican Party is for Medicare/caid and DoE, sometimes they're against it) and expansion of military/security expenditures (unfunded).

I just don't see anything that represents change from that failed, rejected model, or at least I've not seen it communicated on a level that the public at large has heard (or believed).  Elected Republicans still poll far lower than just about anything, let alone Democrats.  Again, I'll submit the only reason Republicans might get elected in 2010 (in addition to Brown, McDonnel and Christie) is that there is simply no other alternative.  It's either Dems or Repubs, so when people want to "throw the bums out" they only have a single viable alternative.

So please, can you clearly explain the "change" you're discussing.  If the answer is tax cuts, deregulation, gutting social programs and expanding military/security apparatus, please be exceptionally specific in exactly what's being proposed.  I.e., how will tax cuts be paid for?  If social services are to be cut, what will be done to mitigate the resulting human suffering (or provide evidence that there won't be any)?  If we're expanding military/security, how will it be paid for?  And wrap that up with an explanation of how it's different - a change - from what Republicans have proposed in the past.

Thanks!

Before I Explain Change

First, to understand many of my posts it will benefit you to know that I'm approaching this from the perspective of my constituents - college students. From my association with them, I've clearly understood a few things:

(1) they strongly dislike what they consider "politics as usual", namely the negative, "let's tear down the other side", way of doing things. Thus, I do my best (but often fail) to echo their concern that negativity is not the way to go about things.

(2) they are deeply conservative, but just like you, want to know Republican's answers to today's problems. However, this is where you and I disagree. You keep mentioning a "failed and rejected model" that Republicans continue to bring up as the answer. I don't think it failed at all. I consider conservatism, best exemplified by Reagan, a set of timeless principles which Republicans got away from in the past 8 years. It was Bush's ideas (not conservative ideals) that failed and were subsequently rejected.

These baseline ideas - small government, fiscal responsibility, government accountability, focus on individual rights - which carry over into more specific policy answers to today's problems resonates well with young adults.

(3) growing up in a different time period - they are often more moderate in terms of social issues.

As to specific answers, I'm admittedly going to cop-out. My job as Political Director doesn't provide me with the time to go into details in this response. Nevertheless, I believe that you'll find my posts on specific issues as they arise will include the responses young conservatives would like to see. Please continue following along and I welcome the discussion.

Brandon, kudos to you for

Brandon, kudos to you for responding to comments on your posts.  Many posters here do not.

I asked above for citations to specific conservative solutions.  It sounds like you intend to address those in future posts so I will wait to read them.

Just a few comments and questions about your response here:

Politiics as usual:  I agree with you here.  I don't hold a position like yours but have three college students/young adults of my own, and your observation rings true with what I've heard from them and their friends.  The Rovian strategy of generating a daily dose of nontroversy fauxrage is off the radar for the most part in that age group,  or actively disliked in the few cases they are aware of it.  At best, it seems to rate a 'meh' from that age group.

I don't doubt that young adults respond to concepts of limited government and individual rights.  In my experience most of them would probably best be described as libertarians.  You acknowledge they're more socially moderate but also say they're "deeply conservative" -- in what way?  I just don't see much of an overlap with the conservative/GOP/Tea Party agenda with the young people I know.  Maybe it depends on geographic location -- I'm in Arizona, where are you?  It will be interesting to see how their experience of the Bush years, vs. the concepts of conservatism, play out in the next few elections with that age group. 

 These baseline ideas - small

 These baseline ideas - small government, fiscal responsibility, government accountability, focus on individual rights - which carry over into more specific policy answers to today's problems resonates well with young adults.

Have heard of this time and time again. Reagan was a good president and came in at the right time with the country in malaise and the stand up to the Soviet Union. However, even Reagan left deficits in which Bush 41 raised taxes. We have seen under Bush 43 the abuse of tax cuts and our budget. We have seen everything else ignored. But if you didn't like the Bush policies, then there is the whole republican party that went along with him or at least were mum on his policies. And in many cases, had encouraged support. 

I have seen so much ignorance and arrogance, that whatever you say or any conservative says just does not wash. It is always the same talking points.

Now is the opportune time to deal with Obama. While there are many disagreements, conservatives can work with Obama on energy independents. Obama, has just said he wanted nuclear power and off shore drilling. This is a win win for everyone.

Education is another area that both parties can mostly agree on. We are dealing with globalization, in which it has been ignored for some 30 years. Education is the one thing we can deal with in this area. And certainly two parties can come together on this. 

I don't like the politics as usual myself and another area in which republicans can go on is to have commissions to cut government spending. Now, republicans say no to this, but again, it is an opportune time to deal with this. In other words get this all out on the table. Right now it is still blame the other guy. 

It seems like a lot of the negativity is coming from the republican side. We hear a lot of no's on every issue.

While Reagan did great things, we see the usual laissez-faire (tax cuts and nothing else) approach from the conservative side. This will not cut it. Now my town has more than 30% unemployment and yet not one republican has come close to understanding the issue. Small government and all the rest of the rhetoric will not make it by themselves.

Still waiting.

http://www.toledoblade.com/assets/pdf/TO51488727.PDF

Ohio and rest of U.S. not creating jobs in economic sectors with import competition - Reader comments at The New York Sun

 

Some Select Answers

Deeply conservative was a possible misstatement. Fiscal conservatism (as well as other select concepts) resonates well amongst nearly all young adults. Where we begin to see young adults splinter off is in areas such as gay marriage, environmental issues, and immigration. These are all complicated issues which young adults approach from different and very nuanced perspectives. A large part of that simply comes from growing up in a much more diverse America. That said, I don't believe it would be wise to shun this group from the Republican party as I beileve they can be included without compromising what it means to be a Republican.

In Between: I would simply like to say that there are a great number of issues that Republicans and Democrats should agree on. Every major piece of legislation from the Civil Rights bill to Medicaid has been passed with bipartisan support. This will take a compromise from both sides of the aisle. Much of the blame is being laid at the feet of the Republican party for their obstructionism, but I believe that Democrats also shoulder some of the blame for failing to include any Republican ideas. Part of this could be the simple fact that they don't think Republicans have ideas worth including, but I also got the sense Democrats felt confident in their majorities and felt they had a mandate following 2008. 

I'll fight you tooth and nail on your Reagan comments, Brandon

His unfunded tax cuts (followed by a spectacular tax hike), coupled with an explosive (pun intended) military expansion left the economy in utter shambles.  G.H.W. Bush ridiculed it as "voodoo economics" and he was right.  When he was forced to do the same thing in his Presidency, disaster ensued again.The numbers couldn't be more clear.  Reagan set a direct precedent for G.W. Bush who did the exact same thing, leaving us where we are today. 

Take a look at deficits per President since WWII.  Every single Democratic President has reduced the deficit.  Every single Republican President has expanded the deficit, and dramatically at that.  Every one, Brandon.

And governent accountability under both Reagan and G.W. Bush is nothing short of appalling.  There's simply no case to be made in this area.

So again, what's the change?  I don't mean to harangue you, though unfortunately that's how it's turning out.  But I'm definitely suggesting that you shouldn't pick up the mantle of change if you can't cleanly define it.  The argument you're making doesn't hold water at all.   What both the Republican Party and the Teabaggers represent is exactly politics as usual. That's what you're trying to rail against, but your chosen vehicle won't get you there.

Awww...

Take a look at deficits per President since WWII.  Every single Democratic President has reduced the deficit.  Every single Republican President has expanded the deficit, and dramatically at that.  Every one, Brandon.

Awww.. it's cute how you conveniently ignore how Congress is the one who passes budgets and instead focus only on the party of the President.

When you do that analysis, you'll find that a Democrat controlled congress would increase spending during Republican Presidents during times when there was some foreign policy issue / conflict / war that required the Republican President to have to make deals with Congress that he would not have normally made during times of peace.

And in the few cases where there were Democrat Presidents the only reason deficits were smaller was because they would tax the life out of the economy which a Republican would have to come back and save.

Nice try, though. Really.

@ RBill

Once you check actual, independently verifiable data, you'll find you're wrong.  And thanks for sullying Brandon's work on keeping a civil environment in his comments threads with your childishly snarky reply.

Mythology

There's a reason why college campuses are a huge problem for the Right:  People like Brandon, who in their arrogance don't realize that young people have brains, and can tell when they are being scammed.

Tax cuts do NOT increase revenue.  Economics 101

Bush lied, soldiers died.  Modern American History 101

The modern GOP has little room for black, brown, Hispanics, and women.  Their own eyes.

What Brandon is not telling us here is his target demographic, and the percentages he is working with, which probably haven't changed much the last twenty years.   I went to a few of these Young Conservative deals in my college days:  Dysfunctional, disconnected, delusional boring loners wandering around with Ayn Rand books and neckties desperately in search of "strong" personalities to emulate and worship.  The loudest and most obnoxious usually had the most sycophants.

There's the reason why Rush, Hannity, Savage, Levin, Boortz and Beck are touchstones for the Right:  And why the disingenuous political Rasputins of the Right, the Roves, the Atwaters, the Cantors, the Pences make time and succeed in wooing these kids and making operatives out of them.

All out of ideas??  Please, Brandon. Save it for the rushes and the pledges, there are grown-ups here.  Sorta.

Oh, and it's "RESURRECT".

Whoops, doing some self "Transaction" analysis here ?

"The loudest and most obnoxious usually had the most sycophants"

Someone wasn't alive during the Reagan years, a trip to the Reagan Library would be an excellant Road trip for the Angry young Democrats.  

As for Universities giving us a Harvard Graduate that cannot Quote the Constitution correctly, and doesn't Understand the history of the 11 American Recessions since the 1940's  and how they were ended, a little more education is needed.

Now I could be wrong....uhhh...would you get Obama's College Grades and lets compare them to President Bush's Yale Grades...OK ?    OH, you can't do that can you, we don't have those Grades, do we ?   OBama wants them to be covered up, secret, no information on his College Grades at all ?

Well, then they must really be bad........is my assumption.  And if BUSH is still bugging Obama after a year in Office, Bush must really be good.

 

@ 4speed

If you're referring to me regarding "alive during the Reagan years," rest assured, I was well along by the time Reagan was elected.  Really, those were my politically formative years.  So I saw what happened at the time and I've analyzed the impacts over time with the mounds of available data.  The conclusion is clear and unmistakeable:  Reagan's economic policies were a clear disaster for this country, with reverberations still felt today, particularly as regards the deficit.  It's simple math, actually.

Clear Disaster ? opinion and no facts

Gee, nice propaganda,  Reagan Economics were a "clear Disaster". 

I would point out that yours is a revisionist view of recent history that ignores reality and denies the facts.

Google "Reagan Tax cuts increased Revenue" and limit your research only to PHD guys reporting the History of One Trillion dollars in increased Tax Revenue over 10 yrs (80-89) as a result of Reagan's Tax Cuts.

You see, when Taxes are CUT, and yet Government Revenue hits Double Digit gains, that means there are a LOT of JOBS, and, people working and sending in Tax Revenue by the bucket load. 

If you can't Google, try Wikipedia and "Reagan tax Rates" for more Info/facts than you ever provided to substantiate your revisionist history of "Clear Disaster".   Any Liberal will believe Wikipedia. 

The revisionist history is Reagan's "fiscal responsibility"

Tax cuts didn't lead to increased revenue; if that were true, the  double dip recession which happened under Reagan wouldn't have  lasted into the 3rd year of his first term, with even worse approval numbers than Obama, I might add. He also refused to stop blaming Carter, so acting like Obama is wrong to point out Bush's failure is a double standard.

What lead to the increased revenue was the dropping of interest rates, which Paul Volcker had dramatically raised when Jimmy Carter was president in order to tame inflation.  The Reagan administration was frustrated by Volcker's tight monetary policy just as Carter and the democrats were.

Reagan tripled the debt, plain and simple. The tax cuts for the rich and the dramatic increase in defense spending, which was his vision, led to the debt explosion. The dramatic increase of the tax burden on the middle class and working poor also started under Reagan. This isn't revisionist history, just facts that conservatives ignore because it doesn't fit the Reagan myth or conservative ideology.

Just for reference, here's the wikipedia entry, since you suggested it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_policy_of_the_Ronald_Reagan_administration

Read under Economic Record how the tripling of the debt was Reagan's biggest disappointment, by his own description. Conservative presidents have always been 'borrow and spend'.

@4speed

No, see, I already did the research, restrictive to academic publications.  You're simply wrong.  I don't suspect either of us will be convinced otherwise - I've already run the numbers and they speak for themselves.

@ poster below saying "Dems sick of Obama blaming Bush,"  perhaps, but only because, like most of the electorate, their attention span is too small to see the big picture.  Obama isn't, as far as I can tell, playing "the blame game."  He's correctly and appropriately apportioning blame where it belongs.  The right is most certainly trying to blame Obama for our current deficit problem when the vast majority of the sum is directly attributable to the previous administration and its concurrent congresses.  That is, if the electorate were fully engaged, they'd see that it's those folks opposing our President who are playing the blame game.

@Dean2 Hey, Research this......your Phoney numbers and O's

This must be why you "Crunched" the numbers but did not post 'em......

President Obama was disingenuous when he said that the budget deficit he faced "when I walked in the door" of the White House was $1.3 trillion. He went on to say that he only increased it to $1.4 trillion in 2009 and was raising it to $1.6 trillion in 2010.

As Joe Wilson said, "You lie."

Here are the facts:

In 2008, George W. Bush ran a deficit of $485 billion. By the time the fiscal year started on Oct.1, 2008, it had gone up by another $100 billion due to increased recession-related spending and depressed revenues. So it was $600 billion. That was the real Bush deficit.

But when the fiscal crisis hit, Bush had to pass TARP in the final months of his presidency, which cost $700 billion. Under the federal budget rules, a loan and a grant are treated the same. So the $700 billion pushed the deficit -- officially -- up to $1.3 trillion. But not really. The $700 billion was a short-term loan, and $500 billion of it has already been repaid.

So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably won't be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited.

 

Tired

I think even the Democrats are tired of hearing Obama blame Bush for everything. It's time to grow up. People forget that Obama voted in favor of every bill brought up by the Bush administration that people are now complaining about. If Obama voted for these bills that he now opposes, how smart is he? The voters see through this stuff.casino en ligne

We have a weiner!

Ricko,

Let's analyze what you just said here. Obama voted in favor of every bill brought up by the bush administration? Really?  Is that true?  Well let's see. Obama was elected in 2004, almost 4 years AFTER Bush came into office.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Illinois,_...

So is it really possible that Obama voted for ALL bills propsed by Bush when he wasn't even Senator?  I don't think so.  So this statement is simply a lie. Get it right or go home.

But let's not quibble this point. Let's just examine the time period when Obama WAS a senator and Bush WAS president.  Obama voted AGAINST a number (if not a lot of bills). The facts that you are very confused about can be found at the link below. Google is an amazing tool for finding FACTS if you have half a brain.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/votes/page5/

A great example is how Obama voted AGAINST this bill while the Republicans rubber stamped it.  Mission Accomplished. Ricko have something to say?

5/24/07 Vote 181: On the Motion: This $120 billion dollar package was passed in the Senate by an 80-14 vote on May 24. The bill primarily focuses on funding for the Iraq war but also addresses other unrelated topics.

But let's not quibble about the word ALL. Let's assume that ALL does not mean everything, only the bull honkey that Ricko wants to spew.  Ok. So do you mean then only the the bills that Obama voted for when a senator and Bush was president that people are complaining about? Perhaps do you mean only the bills he voted against when it was raining on a Tuesday?  So what people? The people complaining about the budgets that Bush proposed that took the deficit from ZERO to almost 1.5 trillion?  Or the two neverending wars that we're fighting?  Are these the bills? Or do you mean other ambiguous bills by those faceless people out there. Somewhere but not everywhere. Only nowhere? Ricko, you seem to be very confused.

I think that this is just another good example of a very typical traits of conservatives posting on this site.  1. Their assertions are just not true.  They either don't know the facts and don't want to know the facts or are just flat out lieing. It's a consistent trait where people just make stuff up knowing that dumb people will believe anything if they hear it enough. That's marketing 101.

So Ricko, if you'ld like to be a man and rephrase your assertions then that's cool. But probably you won't. You'll probably come back and say something kindergardenish like "I know you are but what am I? "

I'ld be satisfied if you say something like.

People forget that Obama voted for some, if not many of the bills brought up during his time in the Senate during the Bush administration that some people disagree with.

This would be a true statement and we could have a reasonable and probably interesting discussion on this.  He did vote for some. But he certainly didn't vote for ALL. 

So yeah, how smart is he? My bet is that if he took and IQ test and you took an IQ test, he'ld win. Probably by a lot.

Smart voters see through this BS and can analyze facts and patently false statements like the ones that Ricko spewed. Dumb voters can't, tend to believe that dinosaurs roamed the earth 4000 years ago, Obama is a socialist nazi from Kenya and the world is still flat. 

Ricko, what do you believe? The moon is made of cheese and if so what flavor?

 

 

Politics as sport, its a distraction

Politicians play up the 'Democrat vs. Republican' battles in order to distract voters from the fact that policy is actually determined by big campaign donors.  Both parties get most their money from the same sources.  At best, a politician will try to balance the concerns of their constituents with the concerns of their backers.  At worst, politians will ignore their constituents concerns and use every trick in the book to cover their own ass.  I guess I'm pretty cynical because I see the whole 'Obama is ruining the country' thing is a distraction trick.  Another trick is running huge bills (like healthcare) through the system.  Huge bills have elements that politicians can talk about, while at the same time they can move unpopular elements through unnoticed.  Politics as sport works well for the media too.  Their ratings are good and they don't have to waste money on factual reporting. 

 

The Reagan Tax Cut Mythology

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/reagan-and-revenue/

 

 

 

January 17, 2008, 7:03 pm

Reagan and revenue — Updated: 2:35 pm -->

Ah - commenter Tom says, in response to my post on taxes and revenues:

Taxes were cut at the beginning of the Reagan administration.

Federal tax receipts increased by 50% by the end of the Reagan Administration.

Although correlation does not prove causation the tax cut must have accounted for some portion of this increase in federal tax receipts.

I couldn’t have asked for a better example of why it’s important to correct for inflation and population growth, both of which tend to make revenues grow regardless of tax policy.

Actually, federal revenues rose 80 percent in dollar terms from 1980 to 1988. And numbers like that (sometimes they play with the dates) are thrown around by Reagan hagiographers all the time.

But real revenues per capita grew only 19 percent over the same period — better than the likely Bush performance, but still nothing exciting. In fact, it’s less than revenue growth in the period 1972-1980 (24 percent) and much less than the amazing 41 percent gain from 1992 to 2000.

Is it really possible that all the triumphant declarations that the Reagan tax cuts led to a revenue boom — declarations that you see in highly respectable places — are based on nothing but a failure to make the most elementary corrections for inflation and population growth? Yes, it is. I know we’re supposed to pretend that we’re having a serious discussion in this country; but the truth is that we aren’t.

Update: For the econowonks out there: business cycles are an issue here — revenue growth from trough to peak will look better than the reverse. Unfortunately, business cycles don’t correspond to administrations. But looking at revenue changes peak to peak is still revealing. So here’s the annual rate of growth of real revenue per capita over some cycles:

1973-1979: 2.7% 1979-1990: 1.8% 1990-2000: 3.2% 2000-2007 (probable peak): approximately zero

Do you see the revenue booms from the Reagan and Bush tax cuts? Me neither.

<a target="_blank" href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v8/3934/f/f8/%2a/i%3B220918893%3B0-0%3B0%3B45027197%3B3454-728/90%3B34861487/34879342/1%3B%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttp://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=blog.nytimes.com/krugman&pos=TopAd&camp=TWC_Q1-2010_1237518_nyt12&ad=TWC_728_BEHVerizonUsers_01.11.10&sn2=1789c18c/90a1d316&snr=doubleclick&snx=1265057721&sn1=7887d9df/cdf02fc6&goto=http%3a%2f%2fwww.twcbc.com/nyc/leadgen/q1landing.html"><img src="http://static.2mdn.net/2386362/TW_LG_BACK_NYC_728x90.gif" width="728" height="90" border="0" alt="" galleryimg="no"></a> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=cookie&pos=TopAd"><img src="http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_remote.html?type=noscript&page=blog.nytimes.com/krugman&posall=Bar1,TopAd,Position1,Position1B,Top5,SponLink,SponLink2,SFMiddle,Box1,Box3,Bottom3,Right5A,Right6A,Right7A,Right8A,Middle1C,Bottom7,Bottom8,Bottom9,Inv1,Inv2,Inv3,tacoda,SOS,CcolumnSS,Middle4,Left1B,Frame6A,Left2,Left3,Left4,Left5,Left6,Left7,Left8,Left9,JMNow1,JMNow2,JMNow3,JMNow4,JMNow5,JMNow6,Feature1,Spon3,ADX_CLIENTSIDE&pos=TopAd&query=qstring&keywords=?"></a>

Yep.

:clapping:

Krugman ? The NY times ? LOL

Krugman ? you're quoting K rug man ? on Economics....The unbiased NY times Spinning left Liberal ? LOL.

Obama would Kill for 19 % per capita Revenue growth, it would save his presidency.

Oh, and those Un-employment numbers of Reagans, (not even mentioned in your K rug post) Obama has busted those numbers, and thats after any 'deflation adjustments' by the Media to hide the "O"s real numbers.
Now Obama is going for a longer time line of above 10 % unemployment numbers than has ever seen in the free world.
K rug man is Lame, and after 1 year in Office Obama is a Lame Duck.

Krugman

Yes, I'm quoting Krugman.  You know, the Princeton professor and Nobel prize winner.

Who would you quote? Let me guess...  Laffer??

Did you even understand his total destruction of your tax-cut-raisesrevenues mythology?  Or will you just put your fingers in your ears, stick out your tongue, and start chanting?

again, @ 4speed

You're kidding, right?  Krugman, while liberal, is still one of the most respected economists in the world.  He didn't make up those numbers, nor does any serious economist or well read layman question them.  Partisan hacks do, though.

Longest time unemployment >10%?  Probably won't be Obama.  It'll probably remain FDR.  Hmmm, I wonder what those two Presidents have in common.  Hmmm.  Oh, yeah, that's right!  A disastrous "conservative" economic regime that sent our economy down in flames before they walked in the door!  That's it!   :rolls eyes:

Obama

President Obama continues to agree with several of President Bush's policies from the past, even if he won't admit it. I wonder what the Bush haters are saying now? It must be a dagger to the heart for liberal radicals to realize that Bush was right on many issues. I think many people are now realizing that although Bush was not as eloquent as Obama, he got things done while Obama just continues to talk. online casino deutschland