We are five years into Obama’s presidency and many on this site are still spewing Bush hate and blame as an excuse for Obama’s inability or unwillingness to seriously tackle our spending problem. What is it with you libbies – a continuing soft bigotry of low expectations for our black president, a fundamental misunderstanding of historical economic and political policy or blindness caused by a side show issue like gay marriage? I believe everyone deserves blame for the mess we’re in but some of you continue to give Obama and the dems a pass at Bush’s expense. Well, maybe a few reminders of what transpired prior to 2009 are needed to put the silly Bush talk behind us so we can have an intellectually honest discussion going forward:
Let me start by providing you with a historical summary of federal spending. During the Clinton years, spending as a percentage of GDP averaged 19.81%, a fraction of one basis point more than average spending during the Bush years:
In short, despite massive defense cuts, record dotcom induced revenues and conservative spending policies pushed on him by a republican congress, Clinton managed to spend more as a % of GDP during his two terms than Bush did. Is there any evidence that Clinton wisely invested the “peace dividend”?
And what about housing finance policies during the Clinton years? I think this Canadian blog post does a good job of addressing it: http://pithocrates.com/tag/artificia...nterest-rates/
“The subprime mortgage crisis caused the Great Recession. And bad government policy caused the subprime mortgage policy. First with artificially low interest rates to encourage everyone to borrow money and take on enormous amounts of debt. Then the Clinton administration took it up a notch. By charging lenders with discrimination in their lending practices.”
So Bush comes to office in 2001 in the midst of a recession, Clinton era intelligence failures and the beginning of a housing market bubble. 9/11 happens and the market tanks. Bush cuts taxes in 2003 to stimulate the economy, revenues increase for four consecutive years, including to levels during 2006-2008 that exceeded the last two years of the Clinton administration and then the housing market crashes:
As the article indicates, “the Bush tax cuts get the blame from Democrats and the media for our current deficit problem”. How convenient. Libbies can’t focus too heavily on Bush’s excessive spending because despite the cost of our war effort, he kept spending at %GDP levels below Clinton and of course, their power is primarily derived from distributing tax revenue. And they won’t dare focus attention on the housing finance debacle because they are primarily responsible for causing the problem and fighting republican efforts to solve it.
In 2005, three+ years before the crash, the pubs passed strict lending standards in the house that was blocked by Senate dems. Remember Barney:
“So he initially supported a Republican measure in 2005 that would have imposed stricter standards on the lenders. But he voted against it in the full chamber because it did not include funding for affordable housing
, he said. The bill passed the House.”
So, where did Obama, the second biggest recipient of Fannie/Freddie donations, stand on Fannie and Freddie reform in 2005:
“That claim has come in two presidential debates. Peter Wallison reminds Wall Street Journal readers of the obvious in pointing out that Obama serves as a Senator and had the power to draft legislation, not letters, to prevent the collapse. Instead, Obama voted present.”
That’s right libbies, he voted present – a bad habit he brought with him from his days in the Illinois legislature. Unfortunately, as far as the spending debate is concerned, Obama’s not present, he’s absent. He’s still in campaign mode and pushing for more taxes when we all know we don’t have a revenue problem:
“By the end of the current budget window, the annual deficit will climb back into the trillion-dollar range -- again, despite higher-than-average revenues (as a percentage of GDP), much higher raw revenues (in dollars), and much lower defense spending (also as a percentage of GDP).”
So don’t be a “Denialist Democrat”. It’s about time you libbies shelved your Bush hate and focused on how we can best cut spending and stimulate growth by reducing the capital being extracted from the private sector.