The American Spectator

Bob| 7.7.09 @ 9:47AM

Antle, was Reagan ever blamed for the huge debt he created? He gave money back to people while keeping spending high, i.e., something for nothing. Carter caused the problem, right? In the same manner, this will always be Bush's recession. Everyone except Fox News and Obama haters on this blog will continue to blame Bush. Just as most people give Reagan a break on spending and find excuses, they will do the same with Obama. You cannot say he didn't try to fix the problem. Haven't you ever done a repair job and once you start it, you realize it is far worse than you imagined? This is just human nature.

As for the borrowed money, again look at Reagan. People look at their condition today, not 20 years from now. The economy will turn around before the next Presidential election and Obama will get credit even though we all know this is a cycle. No one will be able to prove that it would have been the same if we had not spent the money.

Tim| 7.7.09 @ 10:35AM

Seems like wishful thinking to me.

Aaron| 7.7.09 @ 10:38AM

"When will people demand results in exchange for the (borrowed) trillions being spent?" When the people rally behind one loud voice of reason.

Basil Plumley| 7.7.09 @ 11:13AM

Tell us Bob,

How did Reagan create the huge debt?

The last time I checked the Constitution, the House is where all spending originates. Hmmm..... last I checked, the Dems ran the House during Reagan's tenure and are currently running the House as we speak.
The difference is politics. The current high spending is Obama's idea. The extra spending under Reagan was a trade off for Reagan's defense proposals.

This "Reagan did it" crap (as well as your putrid Palin posts) is what earns you the wrath of many posters. Do better.
Reagan wasn't perfect but to compare him to Obama or vice versa is a reckless disregard for History, Reality, and Common Sense.

L. Ross| 7.7.09 @ 11:47AM

Bob:

Gotta disagree with you somewhat here. I know that it is easy to blame the prior administration for a very long time, as you reference with Carter and Reagan.

There is a difference here, however. The economy was actually lurching along pretty OK for almost all of Bush's two terms. Only in the last 4 months did it really go to pot. And quite frankly, Bush immediately began implementing BHO's agenda. This is nothing like what happened with Reagan and Carter. The economy had been on the skids for a long time. Even as a young kid, I still remember those stupid buttons WIN (Whip Inflation Now) that someone thought would turn the economy around. I think those came out when Nixon was still president.

Anyway, Reagan took over an economy with runaway stagflation, and changed the policies of the previous administration. Incidentally, by investing in the military, Reagan was able to pump money into R&D in the high tech sector of the economy. You know, the kind of spending that develops spinoffs used around the world. Simultaneously, he was able to win the cold war in about 10 years. I know, I was in the Strategic Air Command when our jets came off alert. All of this has led to a real savings in the military budget. The military today is only about 2/3rds the size it was in the 80's.

In contrast, BHO is spending a bunch of money the states should have been spending for years on road repairs. Encouraging states to neglect their basic infrastructure needs and just wait for Uncle Sugar to nut up the money. That is really going to be a huge stimulus in the long run. That asphalt and concrete technology is really cutting edge stuff.

Finally, as I have said over and over again in posts, the odds that this stimulus money will be spent in an effective, efficient manner are miniscule. It is impossible to use the scientific method (running repeated experiments in a closed system, changing one variable at a time to observe the outcome) in a nation's economy. But without repeated experiments, we really have no idea where, when, or how the money should be spent.

You know, Bob, I have given you credit in the past for being sharp. I think I gave you too much credit.

Bob| 7.7.09 @ 12:18PM

Basil, thanks for the laugh. Just ponder this question... Do you think it is important to pay your debts? Reagan was creating debt, and he knew it. He could have vetoed more spending bills or not reduced taxes as much. However, he knew the debt needed to be repaid in the future and it wouldn't affect him in his lifetime. I was against the debt created then -- and I'm against the debt created now. Remember that Republicans were totally in power at the beginning of this millennium. There is a pox on the houses of all politicians in this regard.

L. Ross -- in regard to Reagan's problem versus Obama's, I do strongly believe that the economy is in much worse condition now than it was in 1980. It has to do with the type of debt and who owned it. Individuals had much reserve capacity in the 80's, and virtually none right now. Therefore, people could survive a downturn then. Now, it is much more difficult. Besides, then manufacturing played a much more important role in GDP creation. Today, GDP creation is dependent primarily on consumption.

You really cannot say, in retrospect, that the economy was going strong until the end of the Bush term. In fact, we know that the housing bubble was building strongly during the entire Bush administration. It's like going 60 miles per hour and coming to a cliff. If you had read the map, you would have slowed down so you could stop in time. However, the inertia of the housing bubble and credit crisis was so large, that nothing could have stopped it.

Regarding the Obama stimulus -- as I've said many times, I don't believe that government spending, in general, is efficient in creating GDP, I also don't believe that tax cuts work as the macro-economic numbers show. I would have made a cut in payroll taxes and increased infrastructure spending as you have indicated. Payroll tax cuts immediately put money into the economy as they go primarily to people who have no savings reserves. The problem with infrastructure spending is that the result does not occur for a year or two -- but it is necessary. I would have also invested heavily in nuclear energy and the electrical grid. I would not have cut other taxes.

But you know, I'm one of those squishy, fake Republicans.

History will show that Obama will not own this recession. A longer term view will show that the excesses leading up to this recessions occurred primarily during the Bush administration. I think there is a lot of wishful thinking at TAS, but reason will win against belief.

Bob| 7.7.09 @ 12:26PM

Basil, thanks for the laugh. Just ponder this question... Do you think it is important to pay your debts? Reagan was creating debt, and he knew it. He could have vetoed more spending bills or not reduced taxes as much. However, he knew the debt needed to be repaid in the future and it wouldn't affect him in his lifetime. I was against the debt created then -- and I'm against the debt created now. Remember that Republicans were totally in power at the beginning of this millennium. There is a pox on the houses of all politicians in this regard.

L. Ross -- in regard to Reagan's problem versus Obama's, I do strongly believe that the economy is in much worse condition now than it was in 1980. It has to do with the type of debt and who owned it. Individuals had much reserve capacity in the 80's, and virtually none right now. Therefore, people could survive a downturn then. Now, it is much more difficult. Besides, then manufacturing played a much more important role in GDP creation. Today, GDP creation is dependent primarily on consumption.

You really cannot say, in retrospect, that the economy was going strong until the end of the Bush term. In fact, we know that the housing bubble was building strongly during the entire Bush administration. It's like going 60 miles per hour and coming to a cliff. If you had read the map, you would have slowed down so you could stop in time. However, the inertia of the housing bubble and credit crisis was so large, that nothing could have stopped it.

Regarding the Obama stimulus -- as I've said many times, I don't believe that government spending, in general, is efficient in creating GDP, I also don't believe that tax cuts work as the macro-economic numbers show. I would have made a cut in payroll taxes and increased infrastructure spending as you have indicated. Payroll tax cuts immediately put money into the economy as they go primarily to people who have no savings reserves. The problem with infrastructure spending is that the result does not occur for a year or two -- but it is necessary. I would have also invested heavily in nuclear energy and the electrical grid. I would not have cut other taxes.

But you know, I'm one of those squishy, fake Republicans.

History will show that Obama will not own this recession. A longer term view will show that the excesses leading up to this recessions occurred primarily during the Bush administration. I think there is a lot of wishful thinking at TAS, but reason will win against belief.

Bob| 7.7.09 @ 1:15PM

Basil, thanks for the laugh. Just ponder this question... Do you think it is important to pay your debts? Reagan was creating debt, and he knew it. He could have vetoed more spending bills or not reduced taxes as much. However, he knew the debt needed to be repaid in the future and it wouldn't affect him in his lifetime. I was against the debt created then -- and I'm against the debt created now. Remember that Republicans were totally in power at the beginning of this millennium. There is a pox on the houses of all politicians in this regard.

L. Ross -- in regard to Reagan's problem versus Obama's, I do strongly believe that the economy is in much worse condition now than it was in 1980. It has to do with the type of debt and who owned it. Individuals had much reserve capacity in the 80's, and virtually none right now. Therefore, people could survive a downturn then. Now, it is much more difficult. Besides, then manufacturing played a much more important role in GDP creation. Today, GDP creation is dependent primarily on consumption.

You really cannot say, in retrospect, that the economy was going strong until the end of the Bush term. In fact, we know that the housing bubble was building strongly during the entire Bush administration. It's like going 60 miles per hour and coming to a cliff. If you had read the map, you would have slowed down so you could stop in time. However, the inertia of the housing bubble and credit crisis was so large, that nothing could have stopped it.

Regarding the Obama stimulus -- as I've said many times, I don't believe that government spending, in general, is efficient in creating GDP, I also don't believe that tax cuts work as the macro-economic numbers show. I would have made a cut in payroll taxes and increased infrastructure spending as you have indicated. Payroll tax cuts immediately put money into the economy as they go primarily to people who have no savings reserves. The problem with infrastructure spending is that the result does not occur for a year or two -- but it is necessary. I would have also invested heavily in nuclear energy and the electrical grid. I would not have cut other taxes.

But you know, I'm one of those squishy, fake Republicans.

History will show that Obama will not own this recession. A longer term view will show that the excesses leading up to this recessions occurred primarily during the Bush administration. I think there is a lot of wishful thinking at TAS, but reason will win against belief.

Bob| 7.7.09 @ 1:20PM

Sorry, guys, for the multiple posts. I have the final version of Firefox 3.5 with the "feature" of resending posted data when you hit "refresh".

Angel| 7.7.09 @ 1:22PM

Thanks, Bob, for posting your baloney in triplicate today. Makes you look so eager. What a dope.

Angel| 7.7.09 @ 1:24PM

Nice try, but you're still a dope, Bob.

W. James Antle III| 7.7.09 @ 1:32PM

Bob, I've criticized the increased debt levels under Reagan and Bush 43 so many times that it would be boring to reproduce here. Ditto Bush 43's fiscal policies. But Obama is president now. Get back to me when his increases in the debt are followed by something like the end of stagflation or victory in the Cold War.

Part of the problem with Obama's policies is that they are a continuation of Bush's policies, only with spending and borrowing at even more irresponsible levels. Not to worry, sayeth the Obamacons -- at least, unlike Bush, he'll eventually raise taxes. But when taxes go up enough to even begin to try to pay for all this, that's when the worries will really begin.

Angel| 7.7.09 @ 2:03PM

RINO Bob is an Obama groupie.

Bob| 7.7.09 @ 2:26PM

James, we are not technically in a period of stagflation -- we have a stagnant economy but we haven't seen much inflation yet. At this juncture, looking at the world economic picture, I doubt whether we will see any serious inflation for years to come. Remember that inflation is a relative measure. As for ending wars, I am quite happy the Iraq nation building effort is ending and that our foreign policy is no longer expansionist (an historically conservative position).

As for taxes, I don't expect federal taxes for the vast majority of people will go up because income redistribution efforts would not support that activity. However, I do expect tax rates to rise significantly at the state level as they are required to have balanced budgets. Thus, Obama will not be blamed for that.

And James, the economy will cycle through this downturn -- the timing is just right for Obama just as it was with Reagan. My problem is not specifically with Democrats or Republicans, it is with the structure of politics that requires a politician spend to get votes and give tax breaks to donors instead of doing the right thing. Our budget problems will not be solved unless we change this structure. In terms of fiscal responsibility, I don't see much difference between the actions (not rhetoric) of Democrats or Republicans.

Basil Plumley| 7.7.09 @ 2:57PM

Thanks Bob ...... I can always count on you to duck the issue. How did Reagan raise debts when the Constitution only allows the House to spend the money?
Veto spending? Golly gee, Bob how about if he just shut down the government? Yeah that really worked out well for Newt and the gang in the 1990's. I pay my debts but Congressional spending has become so politicized over the years do you honestly think they want to pay their debts?

As Antle alludes in his post, the end of the Cold War is a nice justification for "Reagan's debt". Spreading the wealth around with monopoly money is not my idea of justifying "Obama's spending".

@Angel

You are wrong about Bob, he is not a groupie ............. he is lying prostrate at the altar of Obama.

Bob| 7.7.09 @ 3:17PM

Gee, Basil, why do Presidents have vetoes if they are not useful? Your brilliance recedes you. The President is the only real "check" on Congress. Obviously, Reagan didn't think the debt was important enough to stop. And yes, if I didn't believe I could get spending reduced, I'd raise taxes. However, you'd have to pry that veto pen out of my cold, clenched hands before I would do that.

Basil, stop making excuses and live on principle.

Angel| 7.7.09 @ 3:18PM

"LYING" is the operative word in your comment, Basil. Big bad liar Bob. lol

Angel| 7.7.09 @ 3:21PM

Good G*d, you're a tedious little man, Bob. Little recommends you.

west_rhino| 7.7.09 @ 3:25PM

Ne'er mind the Obama recession, as the incompetence continues the Obama Deperession becomes the albatross about his handler's necks

Bob| 7.7.09 @ 3:36PM

Angel, thank you, again, for staying on topic... The tolerance you show from your religion is clearly evident in your posts. I'm sure your pastor would be proud of you....

Angel| 7.7.09 @ 3:44PM

Typical liberal--no sense of humor; it always gives you away, Bob.

Bob| 7.7.09 @ 3:56PM

Angel, I guess YOU are the liberal here as you didn't see the tongue in cheek humor of my remark. You actually took it seriously. This type of humor is called "satire" -- look it up....

Angel| 7.7.09 @ 4:14PM

Bob, I'm NEVER serious when I engage you! A tad sadistic, perhaps--but never serious. I can't believe that hasn't sunk in yet.

Basil Plumley| 7.7.09 @ 5:27PM

Dear Bob,

It has been said you are a man of intelligence. (I know, the only person who says so, is you, but moving right along....)
Could you explain to the class, what was the greater principle, defeating the Soviet Union or less debt?

If President Bob (trust me IF is the word) were in Reagan's shoes, would he accept a budget that contained most or all of the spending necessary to attain his goal of defeating the Soviets and suffer extra spending by the Democrats or would he declare war on the Democrat's spending and lose any hope for future spending for your projects against the Soviets?

C'mon hotshot, this should be real easy for you to answer.

Raising taxes? Are you sure you're not the one who got the D in Macro-economics? That a real winner politically. Like I said Bob ...... IF.

Angel| 7.7.09 @ 5:53PM

Bob's a glutton for punishment: Why else would he show up every day to receive a verbal caning from his fellow AmSpec classmates?

Bob| 7.7.09 @ 6:03PM

Basil, you settle for too little -- he could have done both. But then again, a linear thinker like you wouldn't have thought of that. I'm under the belief that if you are going to have a war worth fighting, it is worth paying for.

Regarding tax increases, we've been through that argument before. Tax cuts are not very stimulative and I challenge anyone to provide a long term inflation adjusted chart (not two point references) to prove it. And by the way, I received straight "A's" in econ. I doubt whether you've even studied the subject except as you pull it out of......

Angel, the day I receive intelligent verbal responses from you or Basil will be when that place down under freezes over. Have you ever tried to post an intelligent response, or are you limited to empty responses about me?

Angel| 7.7.09 @ 6:13PM

Bob, if I believed that you argued in good faith I would accord you respect; but ever since you tried to demonize and delegitimize Palin you've been on my list.

Women have long memories, Bob, and this woman is no exception. Sorry.

Angel| 7.7.09 @ 6:24PM

Bob, I know you're smart, and I know that you know Basil is smart; so why do you feel it's necessary to throw your Econ grades at him? It's so embarrassing!

You never fail to make me laugh--but it's kind of a smirky laugh.

Bob| 7.7.09 @ 8:01PM

Angel -- read carefully -- it was Basil who brought up grades in econ. And my analysis of Palin is real and has nothing to do with her being a woman. I raised my three daughters to believe they could do anything a man could do. I gave them Chemistry sets, let them play sports, had them play with trains and also take dancing and music. They all have successful careers and children. And they all feel the same way about Palin. You need to stop projecting your feelings onto others. And by the way, men have long memories, too. Especially we older ones. (Our short term memories are shot, however).

For the most part, Angel, I do argue in good faith. I just have significantly different views regarding the nature of the Republican party and the importance of objectivity in the use of analysis. I wonder why you get so much joy from making the types of posts you do and further joy by joining a group that mobs people who disagree with you. But that is something you and your shrink should discuss.

Angel| 7.7.09 @ 8:32PM

You are a liar.

Listen to me carefully, Bob: I distinctly remember your many abusive posts about Palin and I knew immediately that the only reason you went after her so viciously was because she's socially conservative and you thought you could get away with it.

It was rank bigotry and I could smell it all the way from the west coast.

So, please don't try to skitter away from your past remarks about Palin, it's so unbecoming of an accomplished man like yourself. Shame on you.

Angel| 7.7.09 @ 8:44PM

My mental health is excellent, Bob--thank you: My moral acuity is quite strong, too, because I'm not a coward like you. And I certainly don't give a royal rat's a$$ about your memory or what you think of me.

You're a skunk, Sir, and I would never invite a man such as yourself into my life.

Basil Plumley| 7.7.09 @ 9:55PM

Angel, you are awesome. I think Bob courted his wife by dragging her to his cave by her hair. Once successful, he thinks all women should be as submissive. That may explain the Palin thing he has.

Bob, if you know anything about economics, you should know the axiom of "Time is Money". You would waste time tilting at windmills while millions suffer under the jackboot of Communism. That says more about your principles and obtuseness than anything.

There are times in History where events happen that change mankind for the better. Those events will never happen under your watch because you don't have the common decency and respect to lift your fellow man out of the shackles of bondage to the State.
They happened under Reagan because he was a better man than you.

You know Bob, if your girls feel the same way about Palin as you, you must be one hell of a dad.
One question; do they goosestep to the dinner table?

Angel| 7.7.09 @ 10:21PM

I really don't think Bob sees himself as a bully--but he is. I have been bullied by men in my life, and it's very upsetting--actually frightening from a woman's perspective. I had to grow up before I could speak up for myself; and Bob's remarks about Palin last fall really hurt me. I knew it wasn't fair.

Bob, it's not in my nature to be mean to people because I love most everybody--but I've had to stand up for Sarah because I couldn't have looked at myself in the mirror otherwise.

Basil Plumley| 7.7.09 @ 10:52PM

Angel

I will give you a couple of pieces of advice.
Find a mate who thinks like you and believes in the same things you do. You will find it is much easier to build a relationship.
Whatever you do, never compromise your principles; never settle for second best.

It is simple in theory and difficult in execution but the rewards are quite satisfying.
Think of it ....... if you take my advice, you will never have to deal with the Bobs of the world.

Angel| 7.7.09 @ 11:31PM

I know that you are right, Basil. You're also wise regarding the difficulty of the task. Idealism dies hard in some of us and it's a scary time to be alone, you know? I thank God every day for my trust in Him.

I wish Bob no ill: I truly hope he and his wife are happy. But, he's still a bully! lol

Basil Plumley| 7.8.09 @ 7:30AM

I also wish no ill will to Bob. I just think his persona is a little over the top. He just needs to smell his armpits before he accuses others of smelling bad.

Anyway, it sounds like your halfway there. My very best to you in that field of endeavour. Romance is the easy part, its the dang work to make the relationship work that's difficult.

eispauld| 7.8.09 @ 8:12PM

i disagree that "one of the reasons Katrina caused a lasting slide in George W. Bush's approval numbers is that it shook the post-9/11 conviction that he was prepared to meet any national crisis head-on." the lasting slide in bush's numbers due to katrina is that certain people in the media were able to use katrina to paint a picture that george bush didn't like african-americans. the word "katrina" conjures up feelings of racism even to this day. that, and not a failure to deal with post 9/11 problems, is what katrina means to most americans.

pigment Red| 4.6.10 @ 8:57PM

Never frown, Ink Pigments
even when you are sad,Organic Pigments because you never know who is falling in love with your smile.