I need a liberal or dem's take on this

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Spending under Bush rose dramatically during his entire tenure, not just in the first year.

But you pointed out that his first year was an abnormal rise. Yet, as you point out for Obama, the first year's budget of a new president is created by the preceding regime. So, by your reasoning, the abnormality for Bush's first year spike was "inherited" from the Clinton administration. As for the spending during Bush's entire tenure, a great deal of it was for two wars, and an initial cost of those wars was the retooling of the military which Clinton had eviscerated (and which we seem to be in the process of doing again).

And, of course, TARP. But he did "inherit" the housing bubble, and warned Congress several times about what was going to happen. But the Democratic controlled Congress disregarded his warnings.

None of which exonerates him from spending on other stuff he initiated which the Federal Gvt. has no constitutional foundation to deal with.

Certainly there's a big jump in 2009, but most of these appropriations were set before Obama was sworn in. I've seen the "extra" that Obama could take credit for around 140-200B and most of this was the Stimulus.

I've "seen" that the extra for the stimulus was slightly under 200B, but don't forget that the Bush budget ended on September 30. So add to the nearly 200B stimulus outlay, any spending that occurred in the last quarter of 2009 to Obama's, not Bush's budget.

I see, so the actions of a previous President are off limits in political discussions? Good, now everybody can stop blaming Clinton for the housing bubble

I know now that what you see may be very different from what others may see, but I did not say what you claim here. I said that if you want to blame a previous President for passing on an "inheritance," then you should fairly grant that the previous President also "inherited" messes to clean up. That's why I referred to the notion of a President "inheriting" the burdens of his office as crap. The burdens are there for every President, and he doesn't "inherit" those burdens, he seeks them, applies for them, competes to get them. To complain about "inheriting" problems, especially on a constant basis, is not only unseemly, but a weak approach to dealing with them. If you can't handle the job with the grace and strength of character that is required, don't take the job. And know full well that you will most likely leave problems for your successor to "inherit."

Gross oversimplification, almost recklessly so. Very, very different situations.

All comments, including yours re mine, on the forum tend to be simplifications due to space and time. Whether they are "gross" are a matter of opinion. Like you, I see it differently.

How long does some of this progressiveness have to stand before it's regarded as having durability?

"This progressiveness" has stood for nearly a century and appears to be very durable. Reagan tried to roll it back and was successful to some degree, but it has stormed back exponentially. Ergo the still rising spending slope. Progressive government is largely that by lifetime unelected (therefor unresponsive to the people) regulatory experts. Politicians come and go with their hopes and changes and promises, but the experts stay on. And the more progressive the politicans become, the more reams of regulations they instruct the experts to create. And the more regulations are added to the massive list of existing ones and are passed on to be "inherited" by the next regime. That's why you can so often say "Bush did it too." And can, with some degree of validity, say that Romney or McCain would have had the same problems and results if they had won. They all "inherit" the entrenched regulatory State, and operate through it, so that much goes on in the same manner from one administration to another. Less progressive Presidents do cut back on some regulatory actions, but can't easily dispense with the system. Coolidge, the last fully constitutional president in the way he governed, did not have to deal with such a bureacracy so was actually able to reduce the national debt. The Federal Gvt. pre-Civil War which was Constitutionally structured and administered had a spending curve that mostly trended down, and had reduced the debt to mere hundreds of dollars two of those years. The Civil War and growing progressive tendencies spiked the debt and the progressive income tax and the 17th ammendment created the groundwork for gradual progressive governance until it fully burst upon us under FDR. And has been growing ever since. And the national debt has as well.

I think it was worse in that the recovery was stalled because unemployment.

Or unemployment remained because the recovery was stalled. This recovery is looking more like the depression recovery than other recession recoveries. The depression lasted as long as it did, not because of unemployment, unemployment was a result of the depression. And the depression could have been avoided by proper Federal Reserve policies. Once it happend, it was exacerbated and lengthened by insertions of new and powerful regulatory agencies and heavy taxation on wealth creators. The shock of transforming federalism to central power--the massive beginning of the Progressive State--depressed any recovery until more business friendly regimes rolled back or mitigated regulations.

Some of this is simply a global correction, companies who had to cut back found they could perform at a similar rate with what they had. The ripple of the credit bubble (both in housing and household savings) stalled "trickle up" market forces that would generate more employment.

Seems like a gross oversimplification, almost recklessly so. The credit bubble had a lot to do with, and was greatly a result of, regulatory policies.

That's the nature of an economy where wealth generation has less emphasis on individual labor and more on service and speculation.

And that is the nature of a growing regulatory State where emphasis is on government control over an ever expanding sphere of the private sector. As regulation and taxation increase, the cost and difficulty of creating business, of creating individual and private wealth, becomes more difficult. The wealth creation becomes gradually limited to smaller numbers of entrepeneurs who have enough capital and motivation to build. Speculation and service become a less resistant path to wealth. And individual labor is limited to a shrinking number of jobs. The wealth of speculators grows, the wealth and viability of the middle class shrinks, and the dependency class expands.

If anything the Sequester will lower the GDP at least in the near term. I don't think we're going to see any real action until they reach a deal later this year.

-spence

And that is the nature of Progressive government. We have to wait for it to act and regulate. Our economy and well-being are in its hands, not ours.